JN Fuel your research with LabChart
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Neurophysiol 38: 285-300, 1975;
0022-3077/75 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bastian, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bastian, J.

Journal of Neurophysiology, Vol 38, Issue 2 285-300, Copyright © 1975 by APS


ARTICLES

Receptive fields of cerebellar cells receiving exteroceptive input in a Gymnotid fish

J. Bastian

Single neurons in the caudal lobe of the cerebellum of the weakly electric fish Apteronotus albifrons respond to distortions in the normal electric field produced by the animal. Moving plastic or metal objects as well as a simpler stimulus, a moving electrical dipole, produce adequate distortions of the fish's field to cause the cerebellar cells to respond. The moving dipole stimulated small enough areas of the fish's skin, as determined by the responses of single electroreceptors, to allow maps of the receptive fields of single cerebellar cells to be produced. The receptive fields seen varied widely in complexity from relatively small excitatory or inhibitory areas to larger fields containing multiple excitatory and inhibitory areas usually bordering one another. Most cells studied displayed directional responses. Usually qualitatively different responses resulted from opposite directions of movement, and less frequently units were seen in which no response resulted from movement opposite the direction which caused responses; Varying the rate of stimulus movement caused only small changes in the responses of cerebellar cells; however, motionless stimuli applied over areas of skin known to respond to moving stimuli produced weaker responses of the appropriate sign for that area. Movement seems to be an important component of the stimulus for these cells. Cells were also seen which responded to visual as well as to electroreceptive input. Responses to each of these two modalities presented above were quite different. The cells recorded from frequently displayed burst discharges similar to those produced by Purkinje cells in other lower vertebrates, and most of the cells studied are believed to be Purkinje cells. A somatotopic relationship was found between the position of the center of a receptive field on the fish's body and the position of the cell in the brain. All of the results obtained are compatible with the hypothesis that the caudal lobe of the cerebellum is processing electroreceptive information related to object detection.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online