Abstract
Larvae of tobacco hornworms offer unique opportunities to relate the electrophysiological output of identified chemosensory neurons to specific behavioral responses. Larvae can discriminate among three preferred plants with only eight functioning gustatory receptors. They can be induced to prefer any one of the plants, and these preferences can be reversed. All eight neurons respond to each plant sap. Two fire too infrequently to permit detailed analysis. Analyses of the remaining six show that all electrophysiological responses consist of phasic and tonic components. Only the "salt best" cell fires during the phasic period. Temporal analysis of the spike train during this period shows that tomato and tobacco could be distinguished from Jerusalem cherry but not from each other by a rate code. Measurements of behavioral response times together with the nonspecificity of this with respect of food plants, unacceptable plants, and sodium chloride eliminate a phasic period rate code as a probable mechanism for complex discrimination. Events occurring in the tonic period, when all cells are firing, suggest a major role for this period. Analyses of variance in the interval frequencies of the large and medium spikes suggest that a variance code could allow discrimination among the three plants as long as both cells were firing at the same time. Evidence has been found for temporal patterning in the tonic response of the "salt best" cell to Jerusalem cherry but is absent elsewhere. The most likely basis for coding the difference between each of the three plants is across- fiber patterning in which the relative rates of firing and the variances of all the sensory neurons in the tonic phase are critical.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (1.3 MB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- DETHIER V. G. The physiology and histology of the contact chemoreceptors of the blowfly. Q Rev Biol. 1955 Dec;30(4):348–371. doi: 10.1086/401030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dethier V. G. Chemosensory input and taste discrimination in the blowfly. Science. 1968 Jul 26;161(3839):389–391. doi: 10.1126/science.161.3839.389. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dethier V. G. Other tastes, other worlds. Science. 1978 Jul 21;201(4352):224–228. doi: 10.1126/science.663651. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dethier V. G., Solomon R. L., Turner L. H. Sensory input and central excitation and inhibition in the blowfly. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1965 Dec;60(3):303–313. doi: 10.1037/h0022557. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- HODGSON E. S., LETTVIN J. Y., ROEDER K. D. Physiology of a primary chemoreceptor unit. Science. 1955 Sep 2;122(3166):417–418. doi: 10.1126/science.122.3166.417-a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Halpern B. P., Tapper D. N. Taste stimuli: quality coding time. Science. 1971 Mar 26;171(3977):1256–1258. doi: 10.1126/science.171.3977.1256. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hanson F. E., Dethier V. G. Rôle of gustation and olfaction in food plant discrimination in the tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta. J Insect Physiol. 1973 May;19(5):1019–1034. doi: 10.1016/0022-1910(73)90028-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Moore G. P., Perkel D. H., Segundo J. P. Statistical analysis and functional interpretation of neuronal spike data. Annu Rev Physiol. 1966;28:493–522. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ph.28.030166.002425. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Perkel D. H., Gerstein G. L., Moore G. P. Neuronal spike trains and stochastic point processes. I. The single spike train. Biophys J. 1967 Jul;7(4):391–418. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(67)86596-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ratliff F., Hartline H. K., Lange D. Variability of interspike intervals in optic nerve fibers of Limulus: effect of light and dark adaptation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1968 Jun;60(2):464–469. doi: 10.1073/pnas.60.2.464. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Uttal W. R. Emerging principles of sensory coding. Perspect Biol Med. 1969 Spring;12(3):344–368. doi: 10.1353/pbm.1969.0027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]