, 2011, Joesch et al., 2010 and Rister et al., 2007). Given the residual dark edge response observed when L2 is silenced, this latter result is puzzling, as one would expect flies in which both L1 and L2 are silenced to display residual turning in response to dark edges (Figures 5E and 6E). One possible explanation for this synergy between L1 and L2 is that L1 might play a role in dark edge detection (in addition to its prominent

role in light edge detection). To Galunisertib vigorously test this hypothesis, we silenced L1 and L3 simultaneously. While neither of these lines displayed any deficits in dark edge detection when silenced individually, surprisingly, when L1 and L3 were silenced together, they displayed little response to dark edge motion (Figure 6H). Thus, silencing L1 and L3 together produces deficits in dark edge detection indistinguishable from those observed when silencing L2, the previously proposed sole input to dark edge detection (Clark et al., 2011, Joesch et al., 2010, Joesch

et al., 2013 and Eichner et al., 2011). In addition, these flies were largely unable to respond to rotating square wave gratings containing both edge types (Figure 6I), and thus displayed a similarly strong phenotype to flies in which both L1 and L2 were silenced. In contrast, silencing L4 in combination selleck products with either L1, L2, or L3 did not enhance any of

the phenotypes for silencing either lamina neuron on its own (Figures 6J–6R and S6), arguing that L4 does not function redundantly in motion detection under the conditions tested. Taken together, these genetic interaction experiments expand the previous view of the input channels to motion detecting circuitry. In particular, behavioral responses to rotating light edges require only input from L1, whereas behavioral responses to rotating trans-isomer nmr dark edges require L2 as well as redundant input from L1 or L3. In addition to specialization for motion signals with different contrast polarities, behavioral specialization for turning and forward walking responses to visual motion were proposed to exist early in visual processing (Katsov and Clandinin, 2008). To map the various input channels to motion detecting circuits onto this behavioral specialization, we examined whether visual motion cues can modulate forward movements independent of turning. In the absence of a visual motion stimulus, flies, on average, moved forward and could turn in either direction. A visual motion stimulus in which square-wave gratings translated symmetrically past the animal, either progressively (from front to back) or regressively (from back to front) on both eyes, caused wild-type flies to slow their forward movement (Figures 7 and S7).