Object Recognition: Do rats see like we see?
Like primates, the rat brain areas thought to be involved in visual object recognition are arranged in a hierarchy.
- University of Pennsylvania, United States
In our eyes, cells called photoreceptors convert the world around us into a pixel-like representation. Our brains must then reorganize this into a representation that reflects the identities of the objects we are looking at. The same object can be represented by very different pixel patterns, depending on its distance from us, the viewing angle and the lighting conditions. Conversely, different objects can be represented by pixel patterns that are similar. This is what makes object recognition a tremendously challenging problem for our brains to solve, and we do not fully understand how our brains manage to recognize objects.
Nonhuman primates (such as rhesus monkeys) are routinely used to study object recognition because their brains are similar to ours in many ways. However, there are advantages to working with mice and rats, including access to an array of modern biotechnological tools that have been optimized for these species. These tools include sophisticated ways to measure neural activity (Svoboda and Yasuda, 2006), to manipulate neural activity (Fenno et al., 2011), and to map how neurons are connected together within and between brain areas (Oh et al., 2014).
Skepticism that rodents could be used to gain insight into object recognition has largely been targeted at the ways in which rodent visual systems deviate from our own. For example, the retinae of mice and rats are specialized for seeing in the dark, and they lack a region called the fovea that allows humans to see objects in great detail at the center of the gaze. The visual cortex is also organized differently in primates and rodents with regard to how neurons with similar preferences for visual stimuli are clustered together within each brain area, and a much smaller fraction of the rodent cortex is devoted to visual processing. In light of all of these differences, can we really learn much about how our brains recognize objects by studying how rodents see?
In an earlier study, Davide Zoccolan and colleagues presented behavioral evidence that rats are capable of identifying objects under variations in viewing conditions (Zoccolan et al., 2009). Now, in eLife, Zoccolan and co-workers at SISSA in Trieste, the Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia and Harvard Medical School – including Sina Tafazoli and Houman Safaai as joint first authors – present evidence that this behavior is supported by four visual areas of the brain that are arranged in a functional hierarchy (Tafazoli et al., 2017). This is analogous to how object processing happens in the primate brain (DiCarlo et al., 2012).
Researchers had previously relied on anatomical evidence to argue that visual brain areas in rats are organized in a hierarchical fashion (Coogan and Burkhalter, 1993). Tafazoli et al. recorded the activity of four of these areas – termed V1, LM, LI and LL – in response to different objects as they systematically changed a number of variables (such as the position, size and luminance of each object). With this data, they quantified how much information each brain area reflected about the identity of the object, as well as how that information was formatted.
A key insight came from analyzing the degree to which changes in the neural responses to different objects could be attributed to differences in object luminance as opposed to object shape. Compared to the other brain areas, the firing rate of the neurons in V1 (the first brain area in the hierarchy) depended more strongly on the amount of luminance within the region of the visual field that each neuron was sensitive to. Moving through the hierarchy, an increasingly large proportion of the responses of the neurons reflected information about the shape of the object. At the same time, there was a systematic increase in the degree to which information about object identity was formatted in a manner that would make it easy for higher brain areas to access this information (DiCarlo and Cox, 2007).
In the face of considerable evidence that object processing in rats and primates is different, Tafazoli et al. have uncovered a compelling similarity. By design, their study has strong parallels with the studies that established a hierarchy for object processing in the primate brain, and their results suggest that rats and primates may perform object recognition in broadly similar ways. Future work will be required to determine the degree to which the nuts-and-bolts of object processing are in fact the same between the species.
References
-
Hierarchical organization of areas in rat visual cortexJournal of Neuroscience 13:3749–3772.
-
Untangling invariant object recognitionTrends in Cognitive Sciences 11:333–341.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.010
-
The development and application of optogeneticsAnnual Review of Neuroscience 34:389–412.https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-061010-113817
Article and author information
Author details
Publication history
Copyright
© 2017, Rust
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 2,014
- views
-
- 204
- downloads
-
- 0
- 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)
Object Recognition: Do rats see like we see?
eLife 6:e26401.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.26401
Further reading
-
- Neuroscience
The specific role that prolactin plays in lactational infertility, as distinct from other suckling or metabolic cues, remains unresolved. Here, deletion of the prolactin receptor (Prlr) from forebrain neurons or arcuate kisspeptin neurons resulted in failure to maintain normal lactation-induced suppression of estrous cycles. Kisspeptin immunoreactivity and pulsatile LH secretion were increased in these mice, even in the presence of ongoing suckling stimulation and lactation. GCaMP fibre photometry of arcuate kisspeptin neurons revealed that the normal episodic activity of these neurons is rapidly suppressed in pregnancy and this was maintained throughout early lactation. Deletion of Prlr from arcuate kisspeptin neurons resulted in early reactivation of episodic activity of kisspeptin neurons prior to a premature return of reproductive cycles in early lactation. These observations show dynamic variation in arcuate kisspeptin neuronal activity associated with the hormonal changes of pregnancy and lactation, and provide direct evidence that prolactin action on arcuate kisspeptin neurons is necessary for suppressing fertility during lactation in mice.
-
- Neuroscience
Unipolar brush cells (UBCs) are excitatory interneurons in the cerebellar cortex that receive mossy fiber (MF) inputs and excite granule cells. The UBC population responds to brief burst activation of MFs with a continuum of temporal transformations, but it is not known how UBCs transform the diverse range of MF input patterns that occur in vivo. Here, we use cell-attached recordings from UBCs in acute cerebellar slices to examine responses to MF firing patterns that are based on in vivo recordings. We find that MFs evoke a continuum of responses in the UBC population, mediated by three different types of glutamate receptors that each convey a specialized component. AMPARs transmit timing information for single stimuli at up to 5 spikes/s, and for very brief bursts. A combination of mGluR2/3s (inhibitory) and mGluR1s (excitatory) mediates a continuum of delayed, and broadened responses to longer bursts, and to sustained high frequency activation. Variability in the mGluR2/3 component controls the time course of the onset of firing, and variability in the mGluR1 component controls the duration of prolonged firing. We conclude that the combination of glutamate receptor types allows each UBC to simultaneously convey different aspects of MF firing. These findings establish that UBCs are highly flexible circuit elements that provide diverse temporal transformations that are well suited to contribute to specialized processing in different regions of the cerebellar cortex.
