Biological Cybernetics

, Volume 52, Issue 3, pp 195–209 | Cite as

On the neuronal basis of figure-ground discrimination by relative motion in the visual system of the fly

II. Figure-detection cells, a new class of visual interneurones
  • Martin Egelhaaf


A new class of large-field tangential neurones (Figure Detection (FD-) cells) has been found and analysed in the lobula plate, the posterior part of the third visual ganglion, of the fly by combined extra-and intracellular recording as well as Lucifer Yellow injection. The FD-cells are likely to play a prominent role in figure-ground discrimination. Together with the Horizontal Cells, the output elements of the neuronal network underlying the optomotor course control reaction, they seem to be appropriate to account for the characteristic yaw torque response to relative motion. The FD-cells might thus compensate for the “deficits” of the Horizontal Cells with respect to figureground discrimination (see Egelhaaf, 1985a).

The FD-cells are directionally selective for either front-to-back (FD 1, FD 4) or back-to-front motion (FD 2, FD 3). Their excitatory receptive fields cover part of (FD 1, FD 2, FD 3) or the entire horizontal extent (FD 4) of the visual field of one eye. Their most important common property in the context of figureground discrimination is that they are more sensitive to relatively small objects than to spatially extended patterns. Their response to a small figure is much reduced by simultaneous large-field motion in front of the ipsi-as well as the contralateral eye. This large-field inhibition is either directionally selective or bidirectional, depending on the FD-cell under consideration. The main dendritic arborization of all FD-cells resides in the lobula plate. Their axonal projections lie in either the ipsi-or contralateral posterior optic foci and, thus, in the same area as the terminals of the Horizontal Cells. The FD-cells are, therefore, appropriate candidates for output elements of the optic lobes involved in figure-ground discrimination.


Dendritic Arborization Horizontal Cell Optic Lobe Lucifer Yellow Output Element 
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. Beersma, D.G.M., Stavenga, D.G., Kuiper, J.W.: Retinal lattice, visual field and binocularities in flies. J. Comp. Physiol. 119, 207–220 (1977)Google Scholar
  2. Bridgeman, B.: Visual receptive fields sensitive to absolute and relative motion during tracking. Science 178, 1106–1108 (1972)Google Scholar
  3. Collett, T.S.: Visual neurones for tracking moving targets. Nature 232, 127–130 (1971)Google Scholar
  4. Collett, T.S.: Visual neurones in the anterior optic tract of the pivet hawk moth. J. Comp. Physiol. 78, 396–433 (1972)Google Scholar
  5. Collett, T.S., King, A.J.: Vision during flight. In: The compound eye and vision of insects. pp. 437–466. Horridge, G.A., ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1975Google Scholar
  6. Egelhaaf, M.: On the neuronal basis of figure-ground discrimination by relative motion in the visual system of the fly. Part I: Behavioural constraints imposed on the neuronal network and the role of the optomotor system. Biol. Cybern. (in press, 1985a)Google Scholar
  7. Egelhaaf, M.: On the neuronal basis of figure-ground discrimination by relative motion in the visual system of the fly. Part III: Possible input, circuitries and behavioural significance of the FD-cells. Biol. Cybern. (in press, 1985b)Google Scholar
  8. Frost, B.J., Nakayama, K.: Single visual neurons code opposing motion independent of direction. Science, 220, 744–745 (1983)Google Scholar
  9. Frost, B.J., Scilley, P.L., Wong, S.C.P.: Moving background patterns reveal double-opponency of directionally specific pigeon tectal neurons. Exp. Brain Res. 43, 173–185 (1981)Google Scholar
  10. Grünau, M. von, Frost, B.J.: Double-opponent-process mechanisms underlying RF-structure of directionally specific cells of cat lateral suprasylvian visual area. Exp. Brain Res. 49, 84–92 (1983)Google Scholar
  11. Hammond, P., MacKay, D.M.: Modulatory influences of moving textured backgrounds on responsiveness of single cells in feline striate cortex. J. Physiol. 319, 431–442 (1981)Google Scholar
  12. Hausen, K.: Monocular and binocular computation of motion in the lobula plate of the fly. Verh. Dtsch. Zool. Ges. 74, 49–70 (1981)Google Scholar
  13. Hausen, K.: Motion sensitive interneurons in the optomotor system of the fly. I. The horizontal cells: Structure and signals. Biol. Cybern. 45, 143–156 (1982a)Google Scholar
  14. Hausen, K.: Motion sensitive interneurons in the optomotor system of the fly. II. The horizontal cells: receptive field organization and response characteristics. Biol. Cybern. 46, 67–79 (1982b)Google Scholar
  15. Hausen, K., Wehrhahn, C.: Microsurgical lesion of horizontal cells changes optomotor yaw responses in the blowfly Calliphora erythrocephala. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 219, 211–216 (1983)Google Scholar
  16. Mandl, G.: Responses visual cells in cat superior colliculus to relative pattern movement. Vision Res. 25, 267–281 (1985)Google Scholar
  17. Mason, R.: Responsiveness of cells in the cat's superior colliculus to textured visual stimuli. Exp. Brain Res. 37, 231–240 (1979)Google Scholar
  18. Miezin, F., McGuinness, E., Allman, J.: Antagonistic direction specific mechanisms in area MT in the owl monkey. Soc. Neurosci. Abstr. 8, 681 (1982)Google Scholar
  19. Olberg, R.M.: Object-and self-movement detectors in the ventral nerve cord of the dragonfly. J. Comp. Physiol. 141, 327–334 (1981)Google Scholar
  20. O'Shea, M., Rowell, C.H.F.: Protection from habituation by lateral inhibition. Nature 254, 53–55 (1975)Google Scholar
  21. Poggio, T., Reichardt, W., Hausen, K.: A neuronal circuitry for relative movement discrimination by the visual system of the fly. Naturwissenschaften 68, 443–446 (1981)Google Scholar
  22. Reichardt, W.,Poggio, T.: Figure-ground discrimination by relative movement in the visual system of the fly. Part I. Experimental results. Biol. Cybern. 35, 81–100 (1979)Google Scholar
  23. Reichardt, W., Poggio, T., Hausen, K.: Figure-ground discrimination by relative movement in the visual system of the fly. Part II: Towards the neuronal circuitry. Biol. Cybern. 46 [Suppl.] 1–30 (1983)Google Scholar
  24. Rizzolatti, G., Camarda, R.: Influence of the presentation of remote visual stimuli on visual responses of the cat area 17 and lateral suprasylvian area. Exp. Brain Res. 29, 107–122 (1977)Google Scholar
  25. Rowell, C.H.F., O'Shea, M., Williams, J.L.D.: The neuronal basis of a sensory analyser, the acridid movement detector system. IV. The preference for small field stimuli. J. Exp. Biol. 68, 157–185 (1977)Google Scholar
  26. Sterling, R., Wickelgren, P.: Visual receptive fields in the superior colliculus of the cat. J. Neurophysiol. 32, 1–15 (1969)Google Scholar
  27. Stewart, W.W.: Functional connections between cells as revealed by dye-coupling with a highly fluorescent naphthalimide tracer. Cell 14, 741–759 (1978)Google Scholar
  28. Strausfeld, N.J., Bassemir, U., Singh, R.N., Bacon, J.P.: Organizational principles of outputs from dipteran brains. J. Insect Physiol. 30, 73–93 (1984)Google Scholar
  29. Wehrhahn, C.: Visual guidance of flies during flight. In: Comprehensive insect physiology, biochemistry and pharmacology. pp. 673–683. Kerkut, G., Gilbert, L.,eds. Oxford: Pergamon Press 1985Google Scholar
  30. Wehrhahn, C., Hausen, K., Zanker, J.: Is the landing response of the housefly (Musca) driven by motion of a flow field? Biol. Cybern. 41, 91–99 (1981)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Egelhaaf
    • 1
  1. 1.Max-Planck-Institut für biologische KybernetikTübingenFederal Republic of Germany

Personalised recommendations