The Development of the Map from the Nucleus Isthmi: The Influence of Visual Experience on the Formation of Orderly Connections in the Visual System

  • Susan Boymel Udin
Part of the Cell and Developmental Biology of the Eye book series (EYE)


The high degree of anatomical complexity of organization in the visual system is one of its most notable features. Many variations are played on the theme of retinotopic mapping—distortions, transformations and subdivision of maps have been extensively documented in a wide range of vertebrates (Allman and Kaas, 1974; Hubel and Wiesel, 1974; Gruberg and Udin, 1978; Grobstein and Comer, 1983). One feature which most of the visual maps share in common is that the representations from the two eyes are in register. For example, a binocular cell in striate cortex has identical or nearly identical receptive field locations from both eyes. What developmental processes establish this precision of matching of input from the two eyes? This question has received intense attention from many investigators, prompted in large part by the pioneering work of Hubel and Wiesel, who demonstrated that the establishment of binocular connections can be disrupted by monocular visual deprivation or by strabismus (Wiesel and Hubel, 1965; LeVay, et al., 1980). Such manipulations prevent individual cells from maintaining responsiveness to both eyes, but the overall topography of the ipsilateral and contralateral geniculocortical maps is not disrupted.


Optic Tectum Visual Deprivation Rana Pipiens Callosal Connection Nucleus Isthmus 
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. Allman, J.M. and J.H. Kaas. 1974. The organization of the second visual area (V II) in the owl monkey; a second order transformation of the visual hemifield. Brain Res. 76: 247–265.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beazley, L., M.J. Keating and R.M. Gaze. 1972. The appearance, during development, of responses in the optic tectum following visual stimulation of the ipsilateral eye in Xenopus laevis. Vis. Res. 12: 407–410.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berman, N. and B.R. Payne. 1983. Alterations in connections of the corpus callosum following convergent and divergent strabismus. Brain Res. 274: 201–212.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Choudhury, B.B., D. Whitteridge and M.E. Wilson. 1965. The function of the callosal connections of the visual cortex. Q. J. exptl. Physiol. 50: 214–219.Google Scholar
  5. Elberger, A.J., E.L. Smith and J.M. White. 1983. Spatial dissociation of visual inputs alters the origin of the corpus callosum. Neurosci. Lett. 35: 19–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gaze, R.M. and M. Jacobson. 1962. The projection of the binocular visual field on the optic tecta of the frog. Quart. J. exp.Physiol. 47: 273–280.Google Scholar
  7. Grant, S. 1982. The development and modification of binocular neuronal connections in Xenopus laevis. Ph.D. Thesis, University of London, 405 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Grant, S. and M.J. Keating. 1985. Time-course of changes in intertectal connections following eye-rotation in Xenopus laevis. In press.Google Scholar
  9. Grobstein, P. and C. Comer. 1977. Postmetamorphic eye migration in Rana and Xenopus. Nature 269: 54–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grobstein, P. and C. Comer. 1983. The nucleus isthmi as an intertectal relay for the ipsilateral oculotectal projection in the frog, Rana pipiens. J. Comp. Neurol. 217: 54–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grobstein, P., C. Comer, H. Hollyday and S.M. Archer. 1978. A crossed isthmo-tectal projection in Rana pipiens and its involvement in the ipsilateral visuo-tectal projection. Brain Res. 156: 117–123.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gruberg, E.R. and S.B. Udin. 1978. Topographic projections between the nucleus isthmi and the tectum of the frog Rana pipiens. J. Comp. Neurol. 179: 487–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hebb, D.O. 1949. The organization of behavior. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Hubel, D.H. and T.M. Wiesel. 1974. Uniformity of monkey striate cortex: A parallel relationship between field size, scatter, and magnification factor. J. Comp. Neurol. 158: 295–306.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Innocenti, G.M. and R. Caminiti. 1980. Postnatal shaping of callosal connections from sensory areas. Exp. Brain Res. 38: 381–394.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Innocenti, G.M. and D.O. Frost. 1979. Effects of visual experience on the maturation of the efferent system to the corpus callosum. Nature 280: 231–233.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keating, M.J. 1974. The role of visual function in the patterning of binocular visual connections. British Medical Bulletin 30: 145–151.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Keating, M.J. and J. Feldman. 1975. Visual deprivation and intertectal neuronal connections in Xenopus laevis. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 191: 467–474.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. LeVay, S., T.N. Wiesel and D.H. Hubel. 1980. The development of ocular dominance columns in normal and visually deprived monkeys. J. Comp. Neurol. 191: 1–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lund, R.D. and D.E. Mitchell. 1979. Asymmetry in the visual callosal connections of strabismic cats. Brain Res. 167:176– 179.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Potter, H.D. 1969. Structural characteristics of cell and fiber populations in the optic tectum of the frog (Rana catesbeiana). J. Comp. Neurol. 136: 203–232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Udin, S.B. 1983. Abnormal visual input leads to development of abnormal axon trajectories in frogs. Nature 301: 336–338.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Udin, S.B. and M.D. Fisher. 1985. The development of the nucleus isthmi in Xenopus laevis: I. Cell genesis and the formation of connections with the tectum. J. Comp. Neurol. 232: 25–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Udin, S.B. and M.J. Keating. 1981. Plasticity in a central nervous pathway in Xenopus: anatomical changes in the isthmotectal projection after larval eye rotation. J. Comp. Neurol. 203: 575–594.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Von Grunau, M.W. and J.P. Rauschecker. 1983. Natural strabismus in non-Siamese cats: lack of binocularity in the striate cortex. Exp. Brain Res. 52: 307–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wiesel, T.N. and D.H. Hubel. 1965. Binocular interaction in striate cortex of kittens reared with artificial squint. J. Neurophysiol. 28: 1041–1059.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan Boymel Udin

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations