Literature DB >> 11815653

Event-related potentials in an invertebrate: crayfish emit 'omitted stimulus potentials'.

F Ramón1, O H Hernández, T H Bullock.   

Abstract

Electrical signs of neural activity correlated with stimuli or states include a subclass called event-related potentials. These overlap with, but can often be distinguished from, simple stimulus-bound evoked potentials by their greater dependence on endogenous (internal state) factors. Studied mainly in humans, where they are commonly associated with cognition, they are considered to represent objective signs of moderately high-level brain processing. We tested the hypothesis that invertebrates lack such signs by looking in the crayfish Procambarus clarkii for a class of OFF-effects shown in humans to index expectancy. Disproving the hypothesis, we find, using chronic, implanted preparations, that a good omitted stimulus potential is reliably present. The system learns in a few cycles of a regularly repeated light flash to expect one on schedule. Omitted stimulus potentials are found in the protocerebrum, the circumesophageal connective and in the optic tract - perhaps arising in the retina, as in vertebrates. These potentials can be very local and can include loci with and without direct visual evoked potentials in response to each flash. In some loci, the omitted stimulus potential has a slow wave component, in others only a spike burst. Omitted stimulus potentials are more endogenous than visual evoked potentials, with little dependence on flash or ambient light intensity or on train duration. They vary little in size at different times of the day, but abruptly fail to appear if the ambient light is cut off. They can occur during walking, eating or the maintained defense posture but are diminished by 'distraction' and are often absent from an inert crayfish until it is aroused. We consider this form of apparent expectation of a learned rhythm (a property that makes it 'cognitive' in current usage), to be one of low level, even though some properties suggest endogenous factors. The flashes in a train have an inhibitory effect on a circuit that quickly 'learns' the stimulus interval so that the omitted stimulus potential, ready to happen after the learned interval, is prevented by each flash, until released by a missing stimulus.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11815653     DOI: 10.1242/jeb.204.24.4291

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Biol        ISSN: 0022-0949            Impact factor:   3.312


  8 in total

1.  Slow wave sleep in crayfish.

Authors:  Fidel Ramón; Jesús Hernández-Falcón; Bao Nguyen; Theodore H Bullock
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2004-07-30       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Acute dose of alcohol affects cognitive components of reaction time to an omitted stimulus: differences among sensory systems.

Authors:  Oscar H Hernández; Muriel Vogel-Sprott; Teresita C Huchín-Ramirez; Fernando Aké-Estrada
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2005-12-07       Impact factor: 4.530

3.  In praise of "natural history".

Authors:  Theodore Holmes Bullock
Journal:  Cell Mol Neurobiol       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 5.046

4.  Theodore H. Bullock: pioneer of integrative and comparative neurobiology.

Authors:  G K H Zupanc; M M Zupanc
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2008-01-29       Impact factor: 1.836

5.  Electrical potentials indicate stimulus expectancy in the brains of ants and bees.

Authors:  Fidel Ramón; Wulfila Gronenberg
Journal:  Cell Mol Neurobiol       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 5.046

6.  A generic deviance detection principle for cortical On/Off responses, omission response, and mismatch negativity.

Authors:  Vincent S C Chien; Burkhard Maess; Thomas R Knösche
Journal:  Biol Cybern       Date:  2019-08-19       Impact factor: 2.086

Review 7.  Neural Substrates and Models of Omission Responses and Predictive Processes.

Authors:  Alessandro Braga; Marc Schönwiesner
Journal:  Front Neural Circuits       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 3.492

8.  Two different mechanisms for the detection of stimulus omission.

Authors:  Shogo Ohmae; Masaki Tanaka
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-02-05       Impact factor: 4.379

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.