Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology

, Volume 5, Issue 1–2, pp 85–102 | Cite as

The role of visual experience in the formation of binocular projections in frogs

  • Susan Boymel Udin


  1. 1.

    Many parts of the visual system contain topographic maps of the visual field. In such structures, the binocular portion of the visual field is generally represented by overlapping, matching projections relayed from the two eyes. One of the developmental factors which helps to bring the maps from the two eyes into register is visual input.

  2. 2.

    The role of visual input is especially dramatic in the frog,Xenopus laevis. In tadpoles of this species, the eyes initially face laterally and have essentially no binocular overlap. At metamorphosis, the eyes begin to move rostrodorsally; eventually, their visual fields have a 170° region of binocular overlap. Despite this major change in binocular overlap, the maps from the ipsilateral and contralateral eyes to the optic tectum normally remain in register throughout development.

  3. 3.

    This coordination of the two projections is disrupted by visual deprivation. In dark-rearedXenopus, the contralateral projection is nearly normal but the ipsilateral map is highly disorganized.

  4. 4.

    The impact of visual input on the ipsilateral map also is shown by the effect of early rotation of one eye. Examination of the tectal lobe contralateral to the rotated eye reveals that both the contralateral and the ipsilateral maps to that tectum are rotated, even though the ipsilateral map originates from the normal eye. Thus, the ipsilateral map has changed orientation to remain in register with the contralateral map. Similarly, the two maps on the other tectal lobe are in register; in this case, both projections are normally oriented even though the ipsilateral map is from the rotated eye.

  5. 5.

    The discovery that the ipsilateral eye's map reaches the tectum indirectly, via a relay in the nucleus isthmi, has made it possible to study the anatomical changes underlying visually dependent plasticity. Retrograde and anterograde tracing with horseradish peroxidase have shown that eye rotation causes isthmotectal axons to follow abnormal trajectories. An axon's route first goes toward the tectal site where it normally would arborize but then changes direction to reach a new tectal site. Such rearrangements bring the isthmotectal axons into proximity with retinotectal axons which have the same receptive fields.

  6. 6.

    Anterograde horseradish peroxidase filling has also been used to study the trajectories and arborizations of developing isthmotectal axons. The results show that the axons enter the tectum before the onset of eye migration but do not begin to branch profusely until eye movement begins to create a zone of binocular space. Throughout the period of greatest eye movement, many isthmotectal arbors are larger and more diffuse than in older animals.

  7. 7.

    A proposal, based on the Hebb-synapse model, is offered to explain how interactions of isthmotectal axons with other isthmotectal axons and with retinotectal axons could help to organize the ipsilateral map and bring it into alignment with the contralateral map.


Key words

frogs nucleus isthmi development visual experience tectum 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beazley, L. (1975). Development of intertectal neuronal connections inXenopus: The effects of contralateral transposition of the eye and of eye removal.Exp. Brain Res. 23505–518.Google Scholar
  2. Beazley, L., Keating, M. J., and Gaze, R. M. (1972). The appearance, during development, of responses in the optic tectum following visual stimulation of the ipsilateral eye inXenopus laevis.Vis. Res. 12407–410.Google Scholar
  3. Gaze, R. M., and Jacobson, M. (1962). The projection of the binocular visual field on the optic tecta of the frog.Q. J. Exp. Physiol. 47273–280.Google Scholar
  4. Gaze, R. M., and Jacobson, M. (1963). The path from the retina to the ipsilateral optic tectum of the frog.J. Physiol. 16573–74P.Google Scholar
  5. Gaze, R. M., Keating, M. J., Szekeley, G., and Beazley, L. (1970). Binocular interaction in the formation of specific intertectal neuronal connexions.Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 175107–147.Google Scholar
  6. Gaze, R. M., Chung, S.-H., and Keating, M. J. (1972). Development of the retinotectal projection inXenopus.Nature (New Biol.) 236133–135.Google Scholar
  7. Glasser, S., and Ingle, D. (1978). The nucleus isthmus as a relay station in the ipsilateral visual projection to the frog's optic tectum.Brain Res. 159214–218.Google Scholar
  8. Grant, S. (1982).The Development and Modification of Binocular Neuronal Connections in Xenopus laevis, Ph.D. thesis, University of London, London.Google Scholar
  9. Grant, S., and Keating, M. J. (1981). Changing patterns of neuronal connections during the normal maturation of the intertectal system inXenopus laevis.J. Physiol. 32018–19P.Google Scholar
  10. Grant, S., and Keating, M. J. (1985). Time-course of changes in intertectal connections following eye-rotation inXenopus laevis (in press).Google Scholar
  11. Graybiel, A. M. (1978). A satellite system of the superior colliculus: The parabigeminal nucleus and its projections to the superficial collicular layers.Brain Res. 145365–374.Google Scholar
  12. Grobstein, P., and Comer, C. (1977). Postmetamorphic eye migration inRana andXenopus.Nature 26954–56.Google Scholar
  13. Grobstein, P., and Comer, C. (1983). The nucleus isthmi as an intertectal relay for the ipsilateral oculotectal projection in the frog,Rana pipiens.J. Comp. Neurol. 21754–74.Google Scholar
  14. Grobstein, P., Comer, C., Hollyday, M., and Archer, S. M. (1978). A crossed isthmo-tectal projection inRana pipiens and its involvement in the ipsilateral visuo-tectal projection.Brain Res. 156117–123.Google Scholar
  15. Gruberg, E. R., and Udin, S. B. (1978). Topographic projections between the nucleus isthmi and the tectum of the frogRana pipiens.J. Comp. Neurol. 179487–500.Google Scholar
  16. Hebb, D. O. (1949).The Organization of Behaviour, John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Holt, C. E., and Harris, W. A. (1983). Order in the initial retinotectal map inXenopus: A new technique for labelling growing nerve fibres.Nature 301150–152.Google Scholar
  18. Horder, T. J., and Martin, K. A. C. (1977). Variability among laboratories in the occurrence of functional modification in the intertectal visual projection ofXenopus laevis.J. Physiol. 27290–91P.Google Scholar
  19. Keating, M. J. (1974). The role of visual function in the patterning of binocular visual connections.Br. Med. Bull. 30145–151.Google Scholar
  20. Keating, M. J. (1975). The time course of experience-dependent synaptic switching of visual connections inXenopus laevis.Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 189603–610.Google Scholar
  21. Keating, M. J., and Feldman, J. (1975). Visual deprivation and intertectal neuronal connections inXenopus laevis.Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 191467–474.Google Scholar
  22. Keating, M. J., and Gaze, R. M. (1970). The ipsilateral retinotectal pathway in the frog.Q. J. Exp. Physiol. 55284–292.Google Scholar
  23. Keating, M. J., Beazley, L., Feldman, J. D., and Gaze, R. M. (1975). Binocular interaction and intertectal neuronal connexions: Dependence upon developmental stage.Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 191445–466.Google Scholar
  24. Lazar, Gy. (1973). The development of the optic tectum inXenopus laevis: A Golgi study.J. Anat. 116347–355.Google Scholar
  25. Mendez-Otero, R., Rocha-Miranda, C. E., and Perry, V. H. (1980). The organization of the parabigemino-tectal projections in the opossum.Brain Res. 198183–189.Google Scholar
  26. Potter, H. D. (1969). Structural characteristics of cell and fiber populations in the optic tectum of the frog (Rana catesbeiana).J. Comp. Neurol. 136203–232.Google Scholar
  27. Sakaguchi, D. S., and Murphey, R. K. (1984). Initial development of the retinotectal projection inXenopus: An examination of retinal ganglion cell terminal arborizations.Soc. Neurosci. Abstr. 10669.Google Scholar
  28. Schmidt, J. T., and Edwards, D. L. (1983). Activity sharpens the map during the regeneration of the retinotectal projection in goldfish.Brain Res. 20929–39.Google Scholar
  29. Schneider, G. E., and Jhaveri, S. (1984). Rapid postnatal establishment of topography in the hamster retinotectal projection.Soc. Neurosci. Abstr. 10467.Google Scholar
  30. Sherk, H. (1978). Visual response properties and visual field topography in the cat's parabigeminal nucleus.Brain Res. 145375–379.Google Scholar
  31. Sretavan, D., and Shatz, C. J. (1984). Prenatal development of individual retinogeniculate axons during the period of segregation.Nature 306845–848.Google Scholar
  32. Udin, S. B. (1983). Abnormal visual input leads to development of abnormal axon trajectories in frogs.Nature 301336–338.Google Scholar
  33. Udin, S. B. (1984). The morphology of isthmo-tectal axon arbors in developingXenopus frogs.Soc. Neurosci. Abstr. 101033.Google Scholar
  34. Udin, S. B., and Fisher, M. D. (1985). The development of the nucleus isthmi inXenopus. I. Cell genesis and formation of connections with the tecta.J. Comp. Neurol. 23225–35.Google Scholar
  35. Udin, S. B., and Keating, M. J. (1981). Plasticity in a central nervous pathway inXenopus: Anatomical changes in the isthmo-tectal projection after larval eye rotation.J. Comp. Neurol. 203575–594.Google Scholar
  36. Udin, S. B., Keating, M. J., Dawes, E. A., Grant, S., and Deakin, J. F. W. (1985). Intertectal neuronal plasticity inXenopus laevis: Persistence despite catecholamine depletion.Brain Res. (in press).Google Scholar
  37. Watanabe, K., and Kawana, E. (1979). Efferent projections of the parabigeminal nucleus in rats: A horseradish peroxidase (HRP) study.Brain Res. 1681–11.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan Boymel Udin
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Neurobiology, Department of PhysiologyState University of New York at BuffaloBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations