The relationship between habitat use and body shape in geckos.

Geckos are a highly diverse group of lizards, with more than 1,700 species that exhibit a wide range of behaviors, ecologies, and sizes. However, no study has examined links between habitat use and body shape in pad-bearing geckos. We set out to answer a basic question using a data set of pad-bearing geckos (112 species, 103 pad-bearing, 9 padless, 42 genera): Do geckos that occur in different habitats also differ in body shape? Overall, we found that body shape was surprisingly similar among our sample of pad-bearing species, with the exception of the genus Uroplatus, which was clearly distinct from other geckos due to its depressed body and long limbs. However, the padless geckos differed in body shape from the pad-bearing geckos by having longer arms and legs and less rotund bodies. We found that about half of the pad-bearing species primarily inhabit trees, with the other half, divided approximately equally among rocks, the ground, and mixed habitats. We found no significant links between habitat use and body shape, nor any propensity for larger species to occupy different habitats than smaller species. Padless species tend to inhabit rock and ground substrates. Our results indicate that pad-bearing geckos have a relatively uniform body form, which contrasts with to their diversity in color, size, and behavior. Indeed, our data show that the general gecko body shape is suitable for a wide range of habitats, ranging from arboreal to terrestrial. This pattern is a departure from other ecomorphological studies and suggests that geckos may not easily fit into the mold of adaptive radiation, as suggested by prior studies.

Visual training in hemianopia alters neural activity in the absence of behavioural improvement: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Damage to the primary visual cortex (V1) due to stroke often results in permanent loss of sight affecting one side of the visual field (homonymous hemianopia). Some rehabilitation approaches have shown improvement in visual performance in the blind region, but require a significant time investment. METHODS: Seven patients with cortical damage performed 400 trials of a motion direction discrimination task daily for 5 days. Three patients received anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) during training, three received sham stimulation and one had no stimulation. Each patient had an assessment of visual performance and a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scan before and after training to measure changes in visual performance and cortical activity. RESULTS: No patients showed improvement in visual function due to the training protocol, and application of tDCS had no effect on visual performance. However, following training, the neural response in motion area hMT+ to a moving stimulus was altered. When the stimulus was presented to the sighted hemifield, activity decreased in hMT+ of the damaged hemisphere. There was no change in hMT+ response when the stimulus was presented to the impaired hemifield. There was a decrease in activity in the inferior precuneus after training when the stimulus was presented to either the impaired or sighted hemifield. Preliminary analysis of tDCS data suggested that anodal tDCS interacted with the delivered training, modulating the neural response in hMT+ in the healthy side of the brain. CONCLUSION: Training can affect the neural responses in hMT+ even in the absence of change in visual performance.