Fig. 5: The habenula does not provide visual motion information to the IPN and aHB.

a Z projection of a confocal stack of a Tg(elavl3:H2B-GCaMP6s; 16715:Gal4; UAS:Ntr-mCherry) fish before (left) and after (right) NFP treatment. b Same as a but zoomed in view of the IPN. c Pooled ROIs from 11 fish, each neuron is colored according to its correlation value with rightward motion before (left) and after (right) habenula ablation. Only reliably responding neurons are shown (top 5% of reliability index). d Same as c but for control fish not expressing Ntr in the habenula (n(fish)=11). e Number of reliably responding cells in the IPN and aHB before and after habenula ablation (distributions are not significantly different, one-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test, p(IPN) = 0.09, p(aHB)=0.23, n(fish)=11). Cell count was done by counting all reliably responding neurons in the IPN/aHB (neurons with a reliability threshold > 0.25). f Same as e but for control fish not expressing Ntr (distributions are not significantly different, one-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test, p(IPN) = 0.84, p(aHB)=0.48, n = 11). g Distribution of correlation values with all regressors before and after ablation for the IPN and aHB for Ntr+ fish (mean ± sd, n(fish)=11). The variances of the distributions before ablation are not significantly larger than those of the distributions post ablation (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, p(IPN) = 0.25, p(aHB)=0.12). h Distribution of correlation values with all regressors before and after ablation for the IPN and aHB for the control group (mean ± sd, n(fish)=11). The variances of the distributions before ablation are not significantly larger than those of the distributions post ablation (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, p(IPN) = 0.91, p(aHB)=0.28).