Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Comp Neurol ; 521(15): 3464-77, 2013 Oct 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23681972

ABSTRACT

Horizontal head rotation evokes significant responses from trochlear motoneurons of turtle that suggests they have a functional role in abduction of the eyes like that in frontal-eyed mammals. The finding is unexpected given that the turtle is generally considered lateral-eyed and assumed to have eye movements instead like that of lateral-eyed mammals, in which innervation of the superior oblique muscle by the trochlear nerve (nIV) produces intorsion, elevation, and adduction (not abduction). Using an isolated turtle head preparation with the brain removed, glass suction electrodes were used to stimulate nIV with trains of current pulses. Eyes were monitored via an infrared camera with the head placed in a gimble to quantify eye rotations and their directions. Stimulations of nIV evoked intorsion, elevation, and abduction. Dissection of the superior oblique muscle identified lines of action and a location of insertion on the eye, which supported kinematics evoked by nIV stimulation. Eye positions in alert behaving turtles with their head extended were compared with that when their heads were retracted in the carapace. When the head was retracted, there was a reduction in interpupillary distance and an increase in binocular overlap. Occlusion of peripheral fields by the carapace forces the turtle to a more frontal-eyed state, perhaps the reason for the action of abduction by the superior oblique muscle. These findings support why trochlear motoneurons in turtle respond in the same way as abducens motoneurons to horizontal rotations, an unusual characteristic of vestibulo-ocular physiology in comparison with other mammalian lateral-eyed species.


Subject(s)
Eye Movements/physiology , Ocular Physiological Phenomena , Trochlear Nerve/physiology , Turtles/physiology , Vision, Ocular/physiology , Analysis of Variance , Animals , Biomechanical Phenomena , Cranial Nerves/physiology , Data Interpretation, Statistical , Electric Stimulation , Eye/anatomy & histology , Head Movements/physiology , In Vitro Techniques , Oculomotor Muscles/anatomy & histology , Oculomotor Muscles/innervation , Oculomotor Muscles/physiology , Reflex, Vestibulo-Ocular/physiology
2.
Vis Neurosci ; 26(3): 309-18, 2009.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19523265

ABSTRACT

The pond turtle (Trachemys scripta elegans) exhibits a notably sluggish pupillary light reflex (PLR), with pupil constriction developing over several minutes following light onset. In the present study, we examined the dynamics of the efferent branch of the reflex in vitro using preparations consisting of either the isolated head or the enucleated eye. Stimulation of the oculomotor nerve (nIII) using 100-Hz current trains resulted in a maximal pupil constriction of 17.4% compared to 27.1% observed in the intact animal in response to light. When current amplitude was systematically increased from 1 to 400 microA, mean response latency decreased from 64 to 45 ms, but this change was not statistically significant. Hill equations fitted to these responses indicated a current threshold of 3.8 microA. Stimulation using single pulses evoked a smaller constriction (3.8%) with response latencies and threshold similar to that obtained using train stimulation. The response evoked by postganglionic stimulation of the ciliary nerve using 100-Hz trains was largely indistinguishable from that of train stimulation of nIII. However, application of single-pulse stimulation postganglionically resulted in smaller pupil constriction at all current levels relative to that of nIII stimulation, suggesting that there is amplification of efferent drive at the ganglion. Time constants for constrictions ranged from 88 to 154 ms with relaxations occurring more slowly at 174-361 ms. These values for timing from in vitro are much faster than the time constant 1.66 min obtained for the light response in the intact animal. The rapid dynamics of pupil constriction observed here suggest that the slow PLR of the turtle observed in vivo is not due to limitations of the efferent pathway. Rather, the sluggish response probably results from photoreceptive mechanisms or central processing.


Subject(s)
Oculomotor Nerve/physiology , Reflex, Pupillary/physiology , Turtles/physiology , Animals , Ciliary Body/innervation , Efferent Pathways/physiology , Electric Stimulation/methods , Female , In Vitro Techniques , Male , Models, Biological , Nervous System Physiological Phenomena , Reaction Time
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...