Responses of the optic tectum to telencephalic stimulation in catfish

In order to test physiologically for cerebrotectal connections in a fish, averaged evoked potentials and unit responses were recorded from the optic tectum following electrical stimulation applied to the telencephalon in the siluroid teleost Ictalurus nebulosus. A single shock applied to the area dorsalis centralis (Dc) of the telencephalon, and only to this area, elicits a sequence of deflections in the ipsilateral optic tectum: an initial negative peak at about 8 ms, (= N8), a larger N25 and a slow P50-N95. The configurations, depth profiles, latencies and susceptibility to repetitive stimulation, together with the known tectal anatomy, suggest that the first wave is due to the afferent fibers from the telencephalon and that N25 is due to deep tectal neurons. Telencephalic input exerts a conditioning effect on the field potentials and unit responses evoked by direct optic nerve shock. Such a shock elicits, in the contralateral tectum, small negative, optic tract axon peaks followed by a large N6, believed to be postsynaptic, and a still later P12. As a first approximation it is argued that the telencephalic input and the retinal input are activating different sets of neuronal elements in the optic tectum, since the configuration and depth profile of the telencephalic and optic nerve shock-elicited potentials are different. A conditioning Dc stimulus has a long-lasting effect on the form of the optic nerve field potential, maximally when the pallial shock precedes the optic by about 90 ms. The effect, observed by subtracting the conditioned from the unconditioned tectal response to optic nerve shock, is a difference wave with N11 and P20. The unit activity from deep tectal laminae is either activated or accelerated following Dc stimulation, while superficially located neurons are not affected. In another group of tectal units, the optic nerve shock-induced response is depressed by a preceding pallial dorsalis centralis stimulus. The evidence is compatible with the assumption of direct projections from Dc to the deep layers of the tectum, but the timing could also permit indirect pathways. In any case, the influence is not simple or identical for different tectal cell classes.