Journal of Comparative Physiology A

, Volume 173, Issue 3, pp 363–376 | Cite as

Temporal discharge patterns of tectal and medullary neurons chronically recorded during snapping toward prey in toads Bufo bufo spinosus

  • E. Schürg-Pfeiffer
  • C. Spreckelsen
  • J. -P. Ewert


In freely moving toads, the temporal discharge patterns of tectal and medullary neurons were observed during prey-catching.

  1. 1.

    Tectal T5.2 and T8.1 neurons displayed a premotor warming up firing that in the former was addressed specifically to prey orienting or snapping and in the latter generally to almost any kind of body movement.

  2. 2.

    The temporal discharge patterns of T5.2 neurons during snapping were different from those during orienting toward prey. Snapping started in the peak phase of warming up; firing was immediately terminated during the snap; thereafter some rebound activity was observed. Orienting started after the premotor warming up in the declining phase whilst the neuron kept on firing during orienting and then settled when the orienting movement was completed.

  3. 3.

    In toads which were not motivated to catch prey — comparabl to immobilized ones — the discharge frequency of T5.2 neurons toward a prey stimulus revealed no such warming up.

  4. 4.

    Because it is known that prey-selective T5.2 neurons are controlled by pretectal inhibitory influences, the following experiment was conducted: during recording a T5.2 neuron a pretectal lesion was applied ipsilaterally to the recording site. After a few seconds, the neuron showed a strong premotor wanning up in response to any kind of moving object, followed by prey-catching.

  5. 5.

    In the medulla oblongata, different H-type neurons of the hypoglossal nucleus displayed specific discharge patterns which resembled the tongue protractor and retractor muscle activities; a third type resembled the activity of the genio/sterno-hyoid muscle, which are suggested to stabilize the hyoid bone during snapping.

  6. 6.

    There were medullary M8-type neurons with properties similar to T8.1.

  7. 7.

    Snapping could be triggered by electrical stimulation of the optic tectum in the representation of the frontal visual field, but not by stimulation in the hypoglossal nucleus or the adjacent medial reticular formation.

  8. 8.

    A concept of a neuronal circuit for the coordination of tongue muscle contractions in response to prey is proposed.


Key words

Snapping Chronic single cell recording Optic tectum Medulla oblongata Toad 


{a*, a, b, c, d, e, e*}

sequence of seven acts involved in snapping: lunging, jaw opening, tongue projection, grasping prey, tongue retraction, jaw closing, moving back


excitatory receptive field


geniohyoid muscle


genioglossus muscle


neurons of the hypoglossal nucleus


hyoglossus muscle


hypoglossal nucleus


medullary neurons


motor pattern generator


medial reticular formation


muscle sum potential




retinal ganglion cells


snapping evoking area




sternohyoid muscle


tectal neurons


pretectal thalamic neurons


caudal ventral striatum


stripe moving in the direction of its longer axis, called worm [W-] configuration (W-stimulus)


same stripe moving at the same velocity, but the longer axis is oriented perpendicular to the direction of movement, called antiworm [A-] configuration (A-stimulus)


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Borchers H-W (1982) Correlation between behavior patterns and single unit responses from the optic tectum in the freely moving toad (Bufo bufo L.). In: Trappl R, Pask G, Ricciardi L (eds) Progress in cybernetics and systems research, vol 9. Hemisphere Publ Corp, Washington, pp 109–117Google Scholar
  2. Borchers H-W, Ewert J-P (1978) Eye closure in toads (Bufo bufo L.) does not produce off-responses in retinal on-off ganglion cells: a question of efferent commands. J Comp Physiol 125:301–303Google Scholar
  3. Burghagen H (1979) Der Einfluß von figuralen, visuellen Mustern auf das Beutefangverhalten verschiedener Anuren. PhD Thesis, Univ KasselGoogle Scholar
  4. Burghagen H, Ewert J-P (1982) Question of “head preference” in response to worm-like dummies during prey capture of toads Bufo bufo. Behav Processes 7:295–306Google Scholar
  5. Chevalier G, Deniau JM (1990) Disinhibition as a basic process in the expression of striatal functions. Trends Neurosci 13:277–280Google Scholar
  6. Collett TS (1977) Stereopsis in toads. Nature 267:349–351Google Scholar
  7. Deban SM, Nishikawa KC (1992) The kinematics of prey capture and the mechanism of tongue protraction in the green tree frog Hyla cinerea. J Exp Biol 170:135–156Google Scholar
  8. Ewert J-P (1984) Tectal mechanisms that underlie prey-catching and avoidance behaviors in toads. In: Vanegas H (ed) Comparative neurology of the optic tectum. Plenum Press, New York, pp 247–416Google Scholar
  9. Ewert J-P (1987) Neuroethology of releasing mechanisms: prey-catching in toads. Behav Brain Sci 10:337–405Google Scholar
  10. Ewert J-P, Framing EM, Schürg-Pfeiffer E, Weerasuriya A (1990) Responses of medullary neurons to moving visual stimuli in the common toad. I. Characterization of medial reticular neurons by extracellular recording. J Comp Physiol A 167:495–508Google Scholar
  11. Ewert J-P, Beneke TW, Schürg-Pfeiffer E, Schwippert WW, Weerasuriya A (1993) Sensori-motor processes that underlie feeding behavior in tetrapods. In:Bels V, Chardon M, Vandevalle P (eds) Biomechanics of feeding in invertebrates. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York Paris Tokyo (in press)Google Scholar
  12. Finkenstädt T, Adler NT, Allen TO, Ebbesson SOE, Ewert J-P (1985) Mapping of brain activity in mesencephalic and diencephalic structures of toads during presentation of visual key stimuli: a computer assisted analysis of 14C-2DG autoradiographs. J Comp Physiol A 156:433–445Google Scholar
  13. Gans C, Gorniak GC (1982a) Functional morphology of lingual protrusion in marine toads (Bufo marinus). Am J Anat 163:195–222Google Scholar
  14. Gans C, Gorniak GC (1982b) How does the toad flip its tongue? Test of two hypotheses. Science 216:1335–1337Google Scholar
  15. Gillette R, Kovac MP, Davis WJ (1978) Command neurons in Pleurobranchaea receive synaptic feedback from the motor network they excite. Science 199:798–801Google Scholar
  16. Gottschaldt K-M, Vahle-Hinz C (1979) A simplified method of making steel microelectrodes. Pflügers Arch 382:52Google Scholar
  17. Grobstein P (1991) Directed movement in the frog: a closer look at a central representation of spacial location. In: Arbib MA, Ewert J-P (eds) Visual structures and integrated functions. Research notes in neural computing, vol 3. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 125–138Google Scholar
  18. Grüsser O-J, Grüsser-Cornehls U (1976) Neurophysiology of the anuran visual system. In: Llinás R, Precht W (eds) Frog neurobiology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 297–385Google Scholar
  19. Hikosaka O (1989) Role of basal ganglia in initiation of voluntary movements. In: Arbib MA, Amari S (eds) Dynamic interactions in neural networks: models and data. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 53–167Google Scholar
  20. Ingle D (1970) Visuomotor functions of the frog optic tectum. Brain Behav Evol 3:57–71Google Scholar
  21. Laming PR (1989) Central representation of arousal. In: Ewert J-P, Arbib MA (eds) Visuomotor coordination: amphibians, comparisons, models, and robots. Plenum Press, New York, pp 693–727Google Scholar
  22. Lázár G (1989) Cellular architecture and connectivity of the frog's optic tectum and pretectum. In: Ewert J-P, Arbib MA (eds) Visuomotor coordination: amphibians, comparisons, models, and robots. Plenum Press, New York, pp 175–199Google Scholar
  23. Matsumoto N, Schwippert WW, Beneke TW, Ewert J-P (1991) Forebrain-mediated control of visually guided prey-catching in toads: investigation of striato-pretectal connections with intracellular recording/labeling methods. Behav Processes 25:27–40Google Scholar
  24. Matsushima T, Satou M, Ueda K (1989) Medullary reticular neurons in the Japanese toad: morphology and excitatory inputs from the optic tectum. J Comp Physiol A 166:7–22Google Scholar
  25. Megela A, Borchers H-W, Ewert J-P (1983) Relation between activity of tectal neurons and prey-catching behavior in toads Bufo bufo. Naturwissenschaften 70:100–101Google Scholar
  26. Mountcastle VB (1976) The world around us: neural command functions for selective attention. The FO Schmitt Lecture in Neuroscience 1975. Neurosci Res Prog Bull 14. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 1–47Google Scholar
  27. Nishikawa KC, Gans C (1990) Neuromuscular control of prey capture in the marine toad, Bufo marinus. Am Zool 30:141AGoogle Scholar
  28. Nishikawa KC, Gans C (1992) The role of hypoglossal sensory feedback during feeding in the marine toad, Bufo marinus. J Exp Zool 264:245–252Google Scholar
  29. Nishikawa KC, Anderson CW, Deban SM, O'Reily JC (1992) The evolution of neural circuits controlling feeding behavior in frogs. Brain Behav Evol 40:125–140Google Scholar
  30. Satou M, Ewert J-P (1985) The antidromic activation of tectal neurons by electrical stimuli applied to the caudal medulla oblongata in the toad Bufo bufo L. J Comp Physiol A 157:739–748Google Scholar
  31. Satou M, Matsushima T, Takeuchi H, Ueda K (1985) Tongue-muscle-controlling motoneurons in the Japanese toad: topography, morphology and neuronal pathways from the “snappingevoking area” in the optic tectum. J Comp Physiol A 157:717–737Google Scholar
  32. Schnellenpfeil W (1980) Experimentelle Analyse der Aktivität einzelner Neuronen aus dem Mittelhirn freibeweglicher Erdkröten (Bufo bufo L.) unter Zuhilfenahme eines Computers. Staatsexam Thesis, Dept Neurobiology, FB 19, Univ KasselGoogle Scholar
  33. Schnellenpfeil W (1993) Telemetrische Ableitungen von Neuronen aus dem Mesencephalon und der Medulla oblongata der freibeweglichen Erdkröte (Bufo bufo L.). Ph D Thesis, Dept Neurobiology, FB 19, Univ KasselGoogle Scholar
  34. Schürg-Pfeiffer E (1989) Behavior-correlated properties of tectal neurons in freely moving toads. In: Ewert J-P, Arbib MA (eds) Visuomotor coordination: amphibians, comparisons, models, and robots. Plenum Press, New York, pp 451–480Google Scholar
  35. Schürg-Pfeiffer E, Spreckelsen C, Schluckebier R, Ewert J-P (1990a) Computer-aided comparison between chronically recorded neuronal activities and behavior in toads. In: Elsner N, Roth G (eds) Brain-perception-cognition. Proc 18th Göttinger Neurobiol Conference. Thieme, Stuttgart New York, p 85Google Scholar
  36. Schürg-Pfeiffer E, Spreckelsen C, Ewert J-P (1990b) Tectal smallfield neurons recorded in prey-catching toads are sensitive to the real object size. Eur J Neurosci 3:186 (Suppl)Google Scholar
  37. Schwippert WW, Beneke TW, Ewert J-P (1990) Responses of medullary neurons to moving visual stimuli in the common toad. II. An intracellular recording and cobalt-lysine labeling study. J Comp Physiol A 167:509–520Google Scholar
  38. Spreckelsen C (1987) Relation zwischen neuronalen Aktivitäten in der Medulla oblongata und Bewegungsmustern bei der Erdkröte. Dipl Thesis, Univ MarburgGoogle Scholar
  39. Weerasuriya A, Ewert J-P (1981) Prey-selective neurons in the toad's optic tectum and sensorimotor interfacing: HRP studies and recording experiments. J Comp Physiol 144:429–434Google Scholar
  40. Wurtz RH (1979) Modulation of the primate visual system by attention and readiness to respond. In: Kandel ER, Krasne FB, Strumwasser F, Truman JW (eds) Cellular mechanisms in the selection and modulation of behavior. Neurosci Res Prog Bull, vol 17. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 562–576Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Schürg-Pfeiffer
    • 1
  • C. Spreckelsen
    • 1
  • J. -P. Ewert
    • 1
  1. 1.Abteilung Neurobiologie, Fachbereich 19 (Biologie/Chemie), Universität Kassel (GhK)KasselGermany

Personalised recommendations