Nucleus Isthmi and Optic Tectum in Frogs

  • Edward R. Gruberg


Our laboratory has been investigating the role of nucleus isthmi in tectally mediated visual information processing. We have found that unilateral ablation of n. isthmi results in a contralateral monocular scotoma. Within the scotoma the animal does not respond to visually presented prey or threat stimuli. The size of the scotoma is dependent on the volume of n. isthmi ablated. When the entire nucleus is ablated there is no recovery of function within the scotoma for up to 11 months. Unilateral injection into n. isthmi of the excitatory neurotoxin ibotenic acid results in a temporary loss of responses to visually presented prey in the contralateral monocular field. Normal responses return within 1 to 2 weeks. Bilateral ablation of n. isthmi results in loss of responsiveness to visually presented prey and threat stimuli in the entire visual field. After 4 to 5 weeks there is a return of responsiveness in the binocular field. Nucleus isthmi fibers are the predominant non-retinal extrinsic input to the superficial tectal layers. The contralaterally projecting isthmo-tectal fibers cross in the posterior part of the optic chiasm. When this part is transected, the animal no longer responds to visually presented threat stimuli but responds normally to visually presented prey stimuli. Nucleus isthmi is virtually the only cholinergic input to the tectum. There is evidence from other laboratories that some retino-tectal fibers contain membrane bound acetylcholine receptors. Thus, n. isthmi might directly modify retinal input. Our evidence is compatible with the model of Arbib & House with n. isthmi playing a role in prey localization.


Optic Chiasm Optic Tectum Threat Stimulus ChAT Activity Ibotenic Acid 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arbib MA, House DH (1985) Depth and detours: an essay on visually guided behavior. COINS Tech Rep 85–28Google Scholar
  2. Caine HS, Gruberg ER (1985) Ablation of nucleus isthmi leads to loss of specific visually elicited behaviors in the frog Rana pipiens. Neurosci Lett 54: 307–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Collett TS, Udin SB (1983) The role of the toad’s nucleus isthmi in prey-catching behavior. In: Lara R, Arbib MA (eds) Proceedings of the second workshop on visuomotor coordination in frog and toads: models and experiments. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, COINS Tech Rep 83–19Google Scholar
  4. Desan PH, Gruberg ER, Grewell KM, Eckenstein F (1987) Cholinergic innervation of the optic tectum in the frog Rana pipiens. Brain Res 413: 344–349Google Scholar
  5. Glasser S, Ingle D (1978) The nucleus isthmus as a relay station in the ipsilateral visual projection to the frog’s optic tectum. Brain Res 157: 214–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Graybiel AM (1978) A satellite system of the superior colliculus: the parabigeminal nucleus and its projections to the superficial collicular layers. Brain Res 145: 365–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grobstein P, Corner C, Hollyday M, Archer SM (1978) A crossed isthmo-tectal projection in Rana pipiens and its involvement in the ipsilateral visuotectal projection. Brain Res 156: 117–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gruberg ER, Lettvin PI (1980) Anatomy and physiology of a binocular system in the frog Rana pipiens. Brain Res 192: 313–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gruberg ER, Udin SB (1978) Topographic projections between the nucleus isthmi and the tectum of the frog Rana pipiens. J Comp Neuro 1179: 487–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Henley JM, Lindstom JM, Oswald RE (1986) Acetylcholine receptor synthesis in retina and transport to optic tectum in goldfish. Science 232: 1627–1629PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. House DH (1984) Neural models of depth perception in frogs and toads. COINS Tech Rep 84–16 Ingle D (1973) Two visual systems in the frog. Science 181: 1053–1055Google Scholar
  12. Koch C, Ullman S (1985) Shifts in selective visual attention: towards the underlying neural circuitry. Human Neurobiol 4: 219–227Google Scholar
  13. Kostyk S, Grobstein P (1987) Neuronal organization underlying visually elicited prey orienting in the frog. I Effects of various unilateral lesions. Neurosci 21: 41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Shen SC, Greenfield P, Boell EJ (1955) The distribution of cholinesterase in the frog brain. J Comp Neural 102: 717–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sherk H (1979) Connections and visual-field mapping in cat’s tectoparabigeminal circuit. J Neurophysiol 42: 1656–1668PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Székely G, Setalo G, Lézâr Gy (1973) Fine structure of the frog’s optic tectum: optic fibre termination layers. JHirnforsch 14: 189–225Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward R. Gruberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Biology DepartmentTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations