The neural basis of a sensory filter in the Jamming Avoidance Response: No grandmother cells in sight

Summary The Jamming Avoidance Response (JAR), during which weakly electric fish modulate their electric organ discharge rate in response to a foreign electric signal of nearly the same frequency is strongest for frequency differences (fs) between 3–8 Hz. We have searched for neural correlates of this behavioral specificity. Single unit recordings in the anterior lateral line ganglion (ALLG), the posterior lateral line lobe (PLLL) and the torus semicircularis (TS) ofEigenmannia virescens were made during electrical stimulation simulating jamming by a nearby conspecific.Contrary to previously published reports (Scheich 1974, 1977) we conclude that f specificity does not lie in a single class of receptors or higher-order units in the PLLL tuned to the most effective fs. No tuning is seen at the receptor level of the PLLL. Specificity seems to be a population effect first visible at the level of the torus semicircularis, with individual units responding most strongly to different fs, but with most units tuned to approximately + and-4 Hz. By having cells tuned to a variety of fs but occurring in proportions corresponding to the observed behavior (and the degree to which fs impair electrolocation), animals would be better equipped to carry out other tasks such as detection of relative motion of objects in space and would also be better able to read complex stimuli corresponding to the more usual case of simultaneous jamming from several conspecifics (Partridge and Heiligenberg 1980).Units in the PLLL show slight differences in the timing of their firing to jamming signals presented at a frequency slightly above (+f) the fish's pacemaker frequency compared to those presented at a frequency slightly below (–f) (Scheich 1977). Firing pattern within the beat cycle produced by interaction of the fish's EOD, or an electrical mimic, S₁, and the foreign signal, S₂, is largely unaffected by the field orientation of the jamming signal. In the torus, by contrast, two classes of units are encountered which completely reverse the pattern of their firing within the beat cycle if the sign of the f is reversed. And, unlike the PLLL cells, those in TS respond differentially to different stimulus field geometries. Units of class 1 appear to compare T-unit input from different sites on the body surface (Heiligenberg and Bastian 1980) whereas those of class 2 additionally appear to receive input from E- and I-units in the PLLL.Abbreviations: see MethodsThis study was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.