Hoverfly (Eristalis tenax) pursuit of artificial targets

Model organisms and systems in neuroethology: one hundred years of history and a look into the future

The Journal of Comparative Physiology lived up to its name in the last 100 years by including more than 1500 different taxa in almost 10,000 publications. Seventeen phyla of the animal kingdom were represented. The honeybee (Apis mellifera) is the taxon with most publications, followed by locust (Locusta migratoria), crayfishes (Cambarus spp.), and fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster). The representation of species in this journal in the past, thus, differs much from the 13 model systems as named by the National Institutes of Health (USA). We mention major accomplishments of research on species with specific adaptations, specialist animals, for example, the quantitative description of the processes underlying the axon potential in squid (Loligo forbesii) and the isolation of the first receptor channel in the electric eel (Electrophorus electricus) and electric ray (Torpedo spp.). Future neuroethological work should make the recent genetic and technological developments available for specialist animals. There are many research questions left that may be answered with high yield in specialists and some questions that can only be answered in specialists. Moreover, the adaptations of animals that occupy specific ecological niches often lend themselves to biomimetic applications. We go into some depth in explaining our thoughts in the research of motion vision in insects, sound localization in barn owls, and electroreception in weakly electric fish.

Background matching can reduce responsiveness of jumping spiders to stimuli in motion

Motion and camouflage were previously considered to be mutually exclusive, as sudden movements can be easily detected. Background matching, for instance, is a well-known, effective camouflage strategy where the colour and pattern of a stationary animal match its surrounding background. However, background matching may lose its efficacy when the animal moves, as the boundaries of the animal become more defined against its background. Recent evidence shows otherwise, as camouflaged objects can be less detectable than uncamouflaged objects even while in motion. Here, we explored whether the detectability of computer-generated stimuli varies with the speed of motion, background (matching and unmatching) and size of stimuli in six species of jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae). Our results showed that, in general, the responsiveness of all six salticid species tested decreased with increasing stimulus speed regardless of whether the stimuli were conspicuous or camouflaged. Importantly, salticid responses to camouflaged stimuli were significantly lower compared with those to conspicuous stimuli. There were significant differences in motion detectability across species when the stimuli were conspicuous, suggesting differences in visual acuity in closely related species of jumping spiders. Furthermore, small stimuli elicited significantly lower responses than large stimuli across species and speeds. Our results thus suggest that background matching is effective even when stimuli are in motion, reducing the detectability of moving stimuli.

Descending neurons of the hoverfly respond to pursuits of artificial targets

Many animals use motion vision information to control dynamic behaviors. Predatory animals, for example, show an exquisite ability to detect rapidly moving prey, followed by pursuit and capture. Such target detection is not only used by predators but is also important in conspecific interactions, such as for male hoverflies defending their territories against conspecific intruders. Visual target detection is believed to be subserved by specialized target-tuned neurons found in a range of species, including vertebrates and arthropods. However, how these target-tuned neurons respond to actual pursuit trajectories is currently not well understood. To redress this, we recorded extracellularly from target-selective descending neurons (TSDNs) in male Eristalis tenax hoverflies. We show that they have dorso-frontal receptive fields with a preferred direction up and away from the visual midline. We reconstructed visual flow fields as experienced during pursuits of artificial targets (black beads). We recorded TSDN responses to six reconstructed pursuits and found that each neuron responded consistently at remarkably specific time points but that these time points differed between neurons. We found that the observed spike probability was correlated with the spike probability predicted from each neuron's receptive field and size tuning. Interestingly, however, the overall response rate was low, with individual neurons responding to only a small part of each reconstructed pursuit. In contrast, the TSDN population responded to substantially larger proportions of the pursuits but with lower probability. This large variation between neurons could be useful if different neurons control different parts of the behavioral output.

Dual Receptive Fields Underlying Target and Wide-Field Motion Sensitivity in Looming-Sensitive Descending Neurons

Responding rapidly to visual stimuli is fundamental for many animals. For example, predatory birds and insects alike have amazing target detection abilities, with incredibly short neural and behavioral delays, enabling efficient prey capture. Similarly, looming objects need to be rapidly avoided to ensure immediate survival, as these could represent approaching predators. Male Eristalis tenax hoverflies are nonpredatory, highly territorial insects that perform high-speed pursuits of conspecifics and other territorial intruders. During the initial stages of the pursuit, the retinal projection of the target is very small, but this grows to a larger object before physical interaction. Supporting such behaviors, E. tenax and other insects have both target-tuned and loom-sensitive neurons in the optic lobes and the descending pathways. We here show that these visual stimuli are not necessarily encoded in parallel. Indeed, we describe a class of descending neurons that respond to small targets, to looming and to wide-field stimuli. We show that these descending neurons have two distinct receptive fields where the dorsal receptive field is sensitive to the motion of small targets and the ventral receptive field responds to larger objects or wide-field stimuli. Our data suggest that the two receptive fields have different presynaptic input, where the inputs are not linearly summed. This novel and unique arrangement could support different behaviors, including obstacle avoidance, flower landing, and target pursuit or capture.