Control of self-motion in dynamic fluids: fish do it differently from bees.
(2014) In Biology letters 10(5).- Abstract
- To detect and avoid collisions, animals need to perceive and control the distance and the speed with which they are moving relative to obstacles. This is especially challenging for swimming and flying animals that must control movement in a dynamic fluid without reference from physical contact to the ground. Flying animals primarily rely on optic flow to control flight speed and distance to obstacles. Here, we investigate whether swimming animals use similar strategies for self-motion control to flying animals by directly comparing the trajectories of zebrafish (Danio rerio) and bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) moving through the same experimental tunnel. While moving through the tunnel, black and white patterns produced (i) strong... (More)
- To detect and avoid collisions, animals need to perceive and control the distance and the speed with which they are moving relative to obstacles. This is especially challenging for swimming and flying animals that must control movement in a dynamic fluid without reference from physical contact to the ground. Flying animals primarily rely on optic flow to control flight speed and distance to obstacles. Here, we investigate whether swimming animals use similar strategies for self-motion control to flying animals by directly comparing the trajectories of zebrafish (Danio rerio) and bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) moving through the same experimental tunnel. While moving through the tunnel, black and white patterns produced (i) strong horizontal optic flow cues on both walls, (ii) weak horizontal optic flow cues on both walls and (iii) strong optic flow cues on one wall and weak optic flow cues on the other. We find that the mean speed of zebrafish does not depend on the amount of optic flow perceived from the walls. We further show that zebrafish, unlike bumblebees, move closer to the wall that provides the strongest visual feedback. This unexpected preference for strong optic flow cues may reflect an adaptation for self-motion control in water or in environments where visibility is limited. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/4452380
- author
- Scholtyssek, Christine LU ; Dacke, Marie LU ; Kröger, Ronald LU and Baird, Emily LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2014
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- in
- Biology letters
- volume
- 10
- issue
- 5
- article number
- 20140279
- publisher
- Royal Society Publishing
- external identifiers
-
- pmid:24872463
- wos:000336783500019
- scopus:84902138707
- pmid:24872463
- ISSN
- 1744-9561
- DOI
- 10.1098/rsbl.2014.0279
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 053afd2e-1cec-4469-858f-d1c053c0581a (old id 4452380)
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-01 11:13:13
- date last changed
- 2022-03-20 03:40:58
@article{053afd2e-1cec-4469-858f-d1c053c0581a,
abstract = {{To detect and avoid collisions, animals need to perceive and control the distance and the speed with which they are moving relative to obstacles. This is especially challenging for swimming and flying animals that must control movement in a dynamic fluid without reference from physical contact to the ground. Flying animals primarily rely on optic flow to control flight speed and distance to obstacles. Here, we investigate whether swimming animals use similar strategies for self-motion control to flying animals by directly comparing the trajectories of zebrafish (Danio rerio) and bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) moving through the same experimental tunnel. While moving through the tunnel, black and white patterns produced (i) strong horizontal optic flow cues on both walls, (ii) weak horizontal optic flow cues on both walls and (iii) strong optic flow cues on one wall and weak optic flow cues on the other. We find that the mean speed of zebrafish does not depend on the amount of optic flow perceived from the walls. We further show that zebrafish, unlike bumblebees, move closer to the wall that provides the strongest visual feedback. This unexpected preference for strong optic flow cues may reflect an adaptation for self-motion control in water or in environments where visibility is limited.}},
author = {{Scholtyssek, Christine and Dacke, Marie and Kröger, Ronald and Baird, Emily}},
issn = {{1744-9561}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{5}},
publisher = {{Royal Society Publishing}},
series = {{Biology letters}},
title = {{Control of self-motion in dynamic fluids: fish do it differently from bees.}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2014.0279}},
doi = {{10.1098/rsbl.2014.0279}},
volume = {{10}},
year = {{2014}},
}