4.2 Article

Light Aversion in Mice Depends on Nonimage-Forming Irradiance Detection

Journal

BEHAVIORAL NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 124, Issue 6, Pages 821-827

Publisher

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0021568

Keywords

light aversion; melanopsin; negative masking; place preference; predation

Funding

  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  2. Foundation Fighting Blindness
  3. NIH [R01 DE016511]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Detection of light in the eye underlies image-forming vision, but also regulates adaptive responses in physiology and behavior. Typically these adaptive responses do not involve image-forming vision, but depend on a relatively absolute measure of brightness (nonimage-forming irradiance detection). The goal of this study was to further understand how image-forming vision and nonimage-forming irradiance detection contribute to the effects of light on behavior. Three light dependent behaviors were assessed in wild-type, Rpe65-/- and rd1 mice. In Rpe65-/- mice, nonimage-forming irradiance detection is severely attenuated, but rod based visual acuity is relatively preserved. In rd1 mice visual acuity is nonrecordable, but nonimage-forming responses are less severely attenuated than Rpe65-/-. Positive masking, an image-forming vision dependent increase in wheel running, was absent in rd1 and restricted to higher irradiances in Rpe65-/-. Negative masking, a suppression of wheel running sensitivity with nonimage-forming irradiance detection input, was increased in rd1, but reduced in Rpe65-/- mice. By contrast, light aversion, an avoidance of brightly lit areas, was abolished in both Rpe65-/- and rd1. This shows that image-forming vision is not sufficient for light aversion, suggesting nonimage-forming irradiance detection motivates this behavior. Further, the differing effects of disease suggest that negative masking and light aversion are distinct responses with specialized nonimage-forming irradiance detection pathways.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available