Skip to main content
Log in

The neural basis of a sensory filter in the Jamming Avoidance Response: No grandmother cells in sight

  • Published:
Journal of comparative physiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

The Jamming Avoidance Response (JAR), during which weakly electric fish modulate their electric organ discharge rate in response to a foreign electric signal of nearly the same frequency is strongest for frequency differences (Δf s) between 3–8 Hz. We have searched for neural correlates of this behavioral specificity. Single unit recordings in the anterior lateral line ganglion (ALLG), the posterior lateral line lobe (PLLL) and the torus semicircularis (TS) ofEigenmannia virescens were made during electrical stimulation simulating jamming by a nearby conspecific.

Contrary to previously published reports (Scheich 1974, 1977) we conclude that Δf specificity does not lie in a single class of receptors or higher-order units in the PLLL tuned to the most effective Δf s. No tuning is seen at the receptor level of the PLLL. Specificity seems to be a population effect first visible at the level of the torus semicircularis, with individual units responding most strongly to different Δf s, but with most units tuned to approximately + and-4 Hz. By having cells tuned to a variety of Δf s but occurring in proportions corresponding to the observed behavior (and the degree to which Δf s impair electrolocation), animals would be better equipped to carry out other tasks such as detection of relative motion of objects in space and would also be better able to ‘read’ complex stimuli corresponding to the more usual case of simultaneous jamming from several conspecifics (Partridge and Heiligenberg 1980).

Units in the PLLL show slight differences in the timing of their firing to jamming signals presented at a frequency slightly above (+Δf) the fish's pacemaker frequency compared to those presented at a frequency slightly below (−Δf) (Scheich 1977). Firing pattern within the beat cycle produced by interaction of the fish's EOD, or an electrical mimic, S1, and the foreign signal, S2, is largely unaffected by the field orientation of the jamming signal. In the torus, by contrast, two classes of units are encountered which completely reverse the pattern of their firing within the beat cycle if the sign of the Δf is reversed. And, unlike the PLLL cells, those in TS respond differentially to different stimulus field geometries. Units of class 1 appear to compare T-unit input from different sites on the body surface (Heiligenberg and Bastian 1980) whereas those of class 2 additionally appear to receive input from E- and I-units in the PLLL.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bastian J (1975) Receptive fields of cerebellar cells receiving electroreceptive input in a gymnotid fish. J Neurophysiol 38 (2): 285–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastian J, Heiligenberg W (1980a) Neural correlates of the Jamming Avoidance Response inEigenmannia. J Comp Physiol 136:135–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastian J, Heiligenberg W (1980b) Phase-sensitive midbrain neurons inEigenmannia: Neural correlates of the Jamming Avoidance Response. Science 209:828–831

    Google Scholar 

  • Behrend K (1976) Processing information carried in a high frequency wave: a study on the properties of cerebellar units in high frequency electric fish. J Comp Physiol 118:357–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullock TH, Chichibu S (1965) Further analysis of sensory coding in electroreceptors of electric fish. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 54:422–429

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullock TH, Hamstra RH, Scheich H (1972) The Jamming Avoidance Response in high frequency electric fish. J Comp Physiol 77:1–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr CE, Maler L, Heiligenberg W, Sas E (1981) Laminar organisation of the afferent and efferent systems of the torus semicircularis of gymnotiform fish: morphological substrates for parallel processing in the electrosensory system. (in review)

  • Enger PS, Szabo T (1965) Activity of central neurons involved in electroreception in some weakly electric fish (Gymnotidae). J Neurophysiol 28:800–818

    Google Scholar 

  • Heiligenberg W (1973) Electrolocation of objects in the electric fish,Eigenmannia (Rhamphichthyidae, Gymnotoidei). J Comp Physiol 87:137–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Heiligenberg W, Bastian J (1980) The control ofEigenmannia's pacemaker by distributed evaluation of electroreceptive afferences. J Comp Physiol 136:113–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Heiligenberg W, Partridge BL (1981) How electroreceptors encode JAR-eliciting stimulus regimes: Reading trajectories in a phaseamplitude plane. J Comp Physiol 142:295–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Heiligenberg W, Baker C, Matsubara J (1978) The Jamming Avoidance Response inEigenmannia revisited: The structure of a neuronal democracy. J Comp Physiol 127:267–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Heiligenberg W, Finger T, Matsubara J, Carr C (1981) Missing links in the neuronal hardware of the jamming avoidance response in the electric fish,Eigenmannia. Neurosci Abstr 10:207

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsubara J (1980) Neural correlates of a non-jammable electrolocation system. Science 211:722–725

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsubara J, Heiligenberg W (1978) How well do electric fish electrolocate under jamming? J Comp Physiol 125:285–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Partridge BL, Heiligenberg W (1980) Three's crowd? PredictingEigenmannia's responses to multiple jamming. J Comp Physiol 136:153–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheich H (1974) Neuronal analysis of a wave in the time domain: Midbrain units in the electric fish during social behavior. Science 185:365–367

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheich H (1977) Neural basis of communication in the high frequency electric fishEigenmannia virescens (Jamming Avoidance Response) J Comp Physiol 113:181–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheich H, Bullock TH (1974) The role of electroreceptors in the animal's life. II. The detection of electric fields from electric organs. In: Fessard A (ed) Handbook of sensory physiology, vol III/3. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 201–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheich H, Bullock TH, Hamstra RH (1973) Coding properties of two classes of afferent nerve fibers: High frequency electroreceptors in the electric fish,Eigenmannia. J Neurophysiol 36:39–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlegel PA (1973) Perception of objects in weakly electric fishGymnotus carapo as studied in recordings from rhombencephalic neurons. Exp Brain Res 18:340–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Viancour T (1979) Electroreceptors of a weakly electric fish. Characterization of tuberous receptor organ tuning. J Comp Physiol 133:317–325

    Google Scholar 

  • Zipser B, Bennett MVL (1976) Responses of cells of the posterior lateral line lobe to activation of electroreceptors in a mormyrid fish. J Neurophysiol 39:693–712

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Abbreviations: see Methods

This study was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Partridge, B.L., Heiligenberg, W. & Matsubara, J. The neural basis of a sensory filter in the Jamming Avoidance Response: No grandmother cells in sight. J. Comp. Physiol. 145, 153–168 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00605030

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00605030

Keywords

Navigation