Neuropeptide PDF (pigment-dispersing factor)-secreting large ventrolateral neurons (lLN_vs) in theDrosophilabrain regulate daily patterns of rest and arousal. These bilateral wake-promoting neurons are light responsive and integrate information from the circadian system, sleep circuits, and light environment. To begin to dissect the synaptic circuitry of the circadian neural network, we performed simultaneous dual whole-cell patch-clamp recordings of pairs of lLN_vs. Both ipsilateral and contralateral pairs of lLN_vs exhibit synchronous rhythmic membrane activity with a periodicity of ∼5–10 s. This rhythmic lLN_vactivity is blocked by TTX, voltage-gated sodium blocker, or α-bungarotoxin, nicotinic acetylcholine receptor antagonist, indicating that action potential-dependent cholinergic synaptic connections are required for rhythmic lLN_vactivity. Since injecting current into one neuron of the pair had no effect on the membrane activity of the other neuron of the pair, this suggests that the synchrony is attributable to bilateral inputs and not coupling between the pairs of lLN_vs. To further elucidate the nature of these synaptic inputs to lLN_vs, we blocked or activated a variety of neurotransmitter receptors and measured effects on network activity and ionic conductances. These measurements indicate the lLN_vs possess excitatory nicotinic ACh receptors, inhibitory ionotropic GABA_Areceptors, and inhibitory ionotropic GluCl (glutamate-gated chloride) receptors. We demonstrate that cholinergic input, but not GABAergic input, is required for synchronous membrane activity, whereas GABA can modulate firing patterns. We conclude that neuropeptidergic lLN_vs that control rest and arousal receive synchronous synaptic inputs mediated by ACh.

SUMMARY: Snakes lack both an outer ear and a tympanic middle ear, which in most tetrapods provide impedance matching between the air and inner ear fluids and hence improve pressure hearing in air. Snakes would therefore be expected to have very poor pressure hearing and generally be insensitive to airborne sound, whereas the connection of the middle ear bone to the jaw bones in snakes should confer acute sensitivity to substrate vibrations. Some studies have nevertheless claimed that snakes are quite sensitive to both vibration and sound pressure. Here we test the two hypotheses that: (1) snakes are sensitive to sound pressure and (2) snakes are sensitive to vibrations, but cannot hear the sound pressure per se. Vibration and sound-pressure sensitivities were quantified by measuring brainstem evoked potentials in 11 royal pythons, Python regius. Vibrograms and audiograms showed greatest sensitivity at low frequencies of 80–160 Hz, with sensitivities of –54 dB re. 1 m s–2 and 78 dB re. 20 μPa, respectively. To investigate whether pythons detect sound pressure or sound-induced head vibrations, we measured the sound-induced head vibrations in three dimensions when snakes were exposed to sound pressure at threshold levels. In general, head vibrations induced by threshold-level sound pressure were equal to or greater than those induced by threshold-level vibrations, and therefore sound-pressure sensitivity can be explained by sound-induced head vibration. From this we conclude that pythons, and possibly all snakes, lost effective pressure hearing with the complete reduction of a functional outer and middle ear, but have an acute vibration sensitivity that may be used for communication and detection of predators and prey.

Turtles, like other amphibious animals, face a trade-off between terrestrial and aquatic hearing. We used laser vibrometry and auditory brainstem responses to measure their sensitivity to vibration stimuli and to airborne versus underwater sound. Turtles are most sensitive to sound underwater, and their sensitivity depends on the large middle ear, which has a compliant tympanic disc attached to the columella. Behind the disc, the middle ear is a large air-filled cavity with a volume of approximately 0.5 ml and a resonance frequency of approximately 500 Hz underwater. Laser vibrometry measurements underwater showed peak vibrations at 500–600 Hz with a maximum of 300 µm s⁻¹Pa⁻¹, approximately 100 times more than the surrounding water. In air, the auditory brainstem response audiogram showed a best sensitivity to sound of 300–500 Hz. Audiograms before and after removing the skin covering reveal that the cartilaginous tympanic disc shows unchanged sensitivity, indicating that the tympanic disc, and not the overlying skin, is the key sound receiver. If air and water thresholds are compared in terms of sound intensity, thresholds in water are approximately 20–30 dB lower than in air. Therefore, this tympanic ear is specialized for underwater hearing, most probably because sound-induced pulsations of the air in the middle ear cavity drive the tympanic disc.

Physiological and anatomical studies have suggested that alligators have unique adaptations for spatial hearing. Sound localization cues are primarily generated by the filtering of sound waves by the head. Different vertebrate lineages have evolved external and/or internal anatomical adaptations to enhance these cues, such as pinnae and interaural canals. It has been hypothesized that in alligators, directionality may be enhanced via the acoustic coupling of middle ear cavities, resulting in a pressure difference receiver (PDR) mechanism. The experiments reported here support a role for a PDR mechanism in alligator sound localization by demonstrating that (1) acoustic space cues generated by the external morphology of the animal are not sufficient to generate location cues that match physiological sensitivity, (2) continuous pathways between the middle ears are present to provide an anatomical basis for coupling, (3) the auditory brainstem response shows some directionality, and (4) eardrum movement is directionally sensitive. Together, these data support the role of a PDR mechanism in crocodilians and further suggest this mechanism is a shared archosaur trait, most likely found also in the extinct dinosaurs.

Top-down attention increases coding abilities by altering firing rates and rate variability. In the frontal eye field (FEF), a key area enabling top-down attention, attention induced firing rate changes are profound, but its effect on different cell types is unknown. Moreover, FEF is the only cortical area investigated in which attention does not affect rate variability, as assessed by the Fano factor, suggesting that task engagement affects cortical state nonuniformly. We show that putative interneurons in FEF of Macaca mulatta show stronger attentional rate modulation than putative pyramidal cells. Partitioning rate variability reveals that both cell types reduce rate variability with attention, but more strongly so in narrow-spiking cells. The effects are captured by a model in which attention stabilizes neuronal excitability, thereby reducing the expansive nonlinearity that links firing rate and variance. These results show that the effect of attention on different cell classes and different coding properties are consistent across the cortical hierarchy, acting through increased and stabilized neuronal excitability. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Cortical processing is critically modulated by attention. A key feature of this influence is a modulation of “cortical state,” resulting in increased neuronal excitability and resilience of the network against perturbations, lower rate variability, and an increased signal-to-noise ratio. In the frontal eye field (FEF), an area assumed to control spatial attention in human and nonhuman primates, firing rate changes with attention occur, but rate variability, quantified by the Fano factor, appears to be unaffected by attention. Using recently developed analysis tools and models to quantify attention effects on narrow- and broad-spiking cell activity, we show that attention alters cortical state strongly in the FEF, demonstrating that its effect on the neuronal network is consistent across the cortical hierarchy.

Significance: Attention improves perceptual abilities by modulating sensory processing. A key transmitter for attentional control is the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. We show that acetylcholine promotes attentional signals in frontal cortex by differentially activating 2 cholinergic receptor types in different cell groups. Acetylcholine promotes attentional control signals through muscarinic receptors in specific subclasses of broad spiking cells. Moreover, it promotes attentional control signals through muscarinic and nicotinic receptor activation in specific subclasses of narrow spiking cells. Thus, attentional control signals in the frontal eye field (FEF) are supported through nicotinic and muscarinic receptor activation in a highly cell type-specific manner.