Silencing L4 and Lawf1 neurons also abolished the inversion of reverse-optomotor responses (Figure 6C). These disparate phenotypes suggest that several different lamina

neuron types differentially influence the learn more time course of visual adaptation. We note that related feedback neuron pairs (C2/C3 and Lawf1/Lawf2) appear to exert opposing effects. Both behavioral responses and the activity of motion-sensitive neurons are known to depend on the temporal frequency of the motion stimulus (Borst et al., 2010). To closely explore temporal tuning of motion circuits, we employed a psychophysical technique known as motion nulling (Chichilnisky et al., 1993 and Smear et al., 2007), in which two motion gratings are superimposed—a reference pattern moving in one direction and a test pattern moving in the opposite direction. We tested the ability Selleckchem Anti-diabetic Compound Library of flies to distinguish between high- and low-contrast motion stimuli by varying the velocity and contrast of the test pattern across trials. We quantified contrast sensitivity as a function of stimulus velocity by determining the “null contrast” at each test speed (Figure 7A). The null contrast level of control flies varied as a function of the test pattern velocity, providing a measure of contrast sensitivity across stimulus speeds (black line, Figure 7B). Because the reference pattern remained constant (and at a speed

close to Drosophila’s temporal frequency optimum), peak contrast sensitivity occurred when the reference and test pattern were moving at the same speed (5.33 Hz). Silencing four of the five lamina output neuron types (the feedforward pathway) had a strong effect on the shape of contrast sensitivity tuning curves. For example, silencing L3 neurons increased the tendency of flies to follow high-velocity, low-contrast patterns (Figure 7B), which extended the height of the contrast sensitivity tuning function (Figure 7C). In comparison, silencing L1, L2, and L4 resulted in a compression of the contrast sensitivity tuning functions (Figure 7C). Silencing three of the four types of feedback neurons, C2, C3, and Lawf2, affected the ability of flies to distinguish small contrast differences at low test speeds, while behavior at higher

test speeds remained normal. Interestingly, manipulating lamina output Levetiracetam neurons reveals an imbalance (when compared to the control response) between contrast discrimination at high and low speeds (Figures 7C and 7E). In other words, amplified sensitivity in one speed range was accompanied by decreased sensitivity at other speeds. To explore this apparent trade-off and to identify mechanisms that could recapitulate these inactivation results, we simulated lamina processing as the input to a classic HR-EMD (Figure 7C). We observed this imbalanced response with simulations in which the L1 and L2/L4 pathways were tuned differently than the L3 pathway. Specifically, we set the L1 and L2/L4 pathways to be identical and significantly faster than L3 (Figure 7F).