Visual and motor signatures of locomotion dynamically shape a population code for feature detection in Drosophila

Abstract

Natural vision is dynamic: as an animal moves, its visual input changes dramatically. How can the visual system reliably extract local features from an input dominated by self-generated signals? In Drosophila, diverse local visual features are represented by a group of projection neurons with distinct tuning properties. Here we describe a connectome-based volumetric imaging strategy to measure visually evoked neural activity across this population. We show that local visual features are jointly represented across the population, and that a shared gain factor improves trial-to-trial coding fidelity. A subset of these neurons, tuned to small objects, is modulated by two independent signals associated with self-movement, a motor-related signal and a visual motion signal associated with rotation of the animal. These two inputs adjust the sensitivity of these feature detectors across the locomotor cycle, selectively reducing their gain during saccades and restoring it during intersaccadic intervals. This work reveals a strategy for reliable feature detection during locomotion.

Data availability

All software and code is available on GitHub. Main analysis, modeling and figure generation code can be found here: https://github.com/mhturner/glom_pop; Visual stimulus code can be found here: https://github.com/ClandininLab/visanalysis and here: https://github.com/ClandininLab/flystim. Extracted ROI responses and associated stimulus metadata, along with raw imaging data, can be found in a Dryad repository here: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.h44j0zpp8.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Maxwell H Turner

    Department of Neurobiology, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4164-9995
  2. Avery Krieger

    Department of Neurobiology, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Michelle M Pang

    Department of Neurobiology, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Thomas R Clandinin

    Department of Neurobiology, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    For correspondence
    trc@stanford.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6277-6849

Funding

National Institutes of Health (F32-MH118707)

  • Maxwell H Turner

National Institutes of Health (K99-EY032549)

  • Maxwell H Turner

National Institutes of Health (R01-EY022638)

  • Thomas R Clandinin

National Institutes of Health (R01NS110060)

  • Thomas R Clandinin

National Science Foundation (GRFP)

  • Avery Krieger

National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (Fellowship)

  • Michelle M Pang

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2022, Turner et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,209
    views
  • 258
    downloads
  • 23
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Maxwell H Turner
  2. Avery Krieger
  3. Michelle M Pang
  4. Thomas R Clandinin
(2022)
Visual and motor signatures of locomotion dynamically shape a population code for feature detection in Drosophila
eLife 11:e82587.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.82587

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.82587

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    William T Redman, Santiago Acosta-Mendoza ... Michael J Goard
    Research Article

    Although grid cells are one of the most well-studied functional classes of neurons in the mammalian brain, whether there is a single orientation and spacing value per grid module has not been carefully tested. We analyze a recent large-scale recording of medial entorhinal cortex to characterize the presence and degree of heterogeneity of grid properties within individual modules. We find evidence for small, but robust, variability and hypothesize that this property of the grid code could enhance the encoding of local spatial information. Performing analysis on synthetic populations of grid cells, where we have complete control over the amount heterogeneity in grid properties, we demonstrate that grid property variability of a similar magnitude to the analyzed data leads to significantly decreased decoding error. This holds even when restricted to activity from a single module. Our results highlight how the heterogeneity of the neural response properties may benefit coding and opens new directions for theoretical and experimental analysis of grid cells.

    1. Neuroscience
    Maren Klingelhöfer-Jens, Katharina Hutterer ... Tina B Lonsdorf
    Research Article

    Childhood adversity is a strong predictor of developing psychopathological conditions. Multiple theories on the mechanisms underlying this association have been suggested which, however, differ in the operationalization of ‘exposure.’ Altered (threat) learning mechanisms represent central mechanisms by which environmental inputs shape emotional and cognitive processes and ultimately behavior. 1402 healthy participants underwent a fear conditioning paradigm (acquisition training, generalization), while acquiring skin conductance responses (SCRs) and ratings (arousal, valence, and contingency). Childhood adversity was operationalized as (1) dichotomization, and following (2) the specificity model, (3) the cumulative risk model, and (4) the dimensional model. Individuals exposed to childhood adversity showed blunted physiological reactivity in SCRs, but not ratings, and reduced CS+/CS- discrimination during both phases, mainly driven by attenuated CS+ responding. The latter was evident across different operationalizations of ‘exposure’ following the different theories. None of the theories tested showed clear explanatory superiority. Notably, a remarkably different pattern of increased responding to the CS- is reported in the literature for anxiety patients, suggesting that individuals exposed to childhood adversity may represent a specific sub-sample. We highlight that theories linking childhood adversity to (vulnerability to) psychopathology need refinement.