Walter Heiligenberg: the jamming avoidance response and beyond
- First Online:
- Cite this article as:
- Zupanc, G.K.H. & Bullock, T.H. J Comp Physiol A (2006) 192: 561. doi:10.1007/s00359-006-0098-5
- 122 Views
Walter Heiligenberg (1938–1994) was an exceptionally gifted behavioral physiologist who made enormous contributions to the analysis of behavior and to our understanding of how the brain initiates and controls species-typical behavioral patterns. He was distinguished by his rigorous analytical approach used in both behavioral studies and neuroethological investigations. Among his most significant contributions to neuroethology are a detailed analysis of the computational rules governing the jamming avoidance response in weakly electric fish and the elucidation of the principal neural pathway involved in neural control of this behavior. Based on his work, the jamming avoidance response is perhaps the best-understood vertebrate behavior pattern in terms of the underlying neural substrate. In addition to this pioneering work, Heiligenberg stimulated research in a significant number of other areas of ethology and neuroethology, including: the quantitative assessment of aggressivity in cichlid fish; the ethological analysis of the stimulus–response relationship in the chirping behavior of crickets; the exploration of the neural and endocrine basis of communicatory behavior in weakly electric fish; the study of cellular mechanisms of neuronal plasticity in the adult fish brain; and the phylogenetic analysis of electric fishes using a combination of morphology, electrophysiology, and mitochondrial sequence data.
KeywordsCichlid fishAstatotilapia (Haplochromis) burtoniLaw of heterogenous summationElectric fishEigenmannia sp.ElectrolocationParallel processing
Central posterior/prepacemaker nucleus
Frequency of a neighboring fish’s electric organ discharge minus frequency of the fish’s own discharge
Electrosensory lateral line lobe
Electric organ discharge
Sublemniscal prepacemaker nucleus
Torus semicircularis pars dorsalis
Childhood and first scientific encounters
In 1953, at the age of 15, Walter met Konrad Lorenz, one of the founders of modern ethology and at that time head of a Max Planck research group in Buldern near Münster. Inspired by Lorenz, Walter became interested in zoology, particularly the study of animal behavior. While still at school, he frequently visited Lorenz and conducted his first behavioral observations and experiments on fish and birds kept in his parents’ house.
After graduating from a humanistic gymnasium in 1958, he enrolled at the University of Münster, but soon thereafter transferred to the University of Munich, when Lorenz, jointly with the behavioral physiologist Erich von Holst, established a new research institute solely devoted to the analysis of behavior—the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Physiology in Seewiesen, 20 km southwest of Munich. In the first few semesters Walter studied primarily zoology and botany, but later focused more and more on mathematics and physics. In the latter subject, he passed his prediploma exam (equivalent to obtaining a B.Sc. degree) in 1962. This keen interest in a stringent analytical approach, combined with the attempt to describe scientific phenomena in mathematical terms, promised to become a characteristic feature of Walter’s scientific approach.
The ethological phase
His Ph.D. thesis, carried out under the guidance of Konrad Lorenz and the sensory physiologist Hansjochem Autrum, was entitled “Ursachen für das Auftreten von Instinktbewegungen bei einem Fische (Pelmatochromis subocellatus kribensis BOUL., Cichlidae)” [“Proximate causes of instinctive behavior in a fish (Pelmatochromis subocellatus kribensis BOUL., Cichlidae)”]. In this investigation, Walter performed a quantitative analysis of the effect of motivational factors on the occurrence of various social behavioral patterns.
After obtaining his Ph.D. in 1963, Walter remained in Seewiesen, but left the group of Lorenz to join the more analytically oriented department of Horst Mittelstaedt. During the following years, he continued to analyze motivational processes in animals, particularly in cichlids and crickets. He developed techniques to register behavior patterns under controlled experimental conditions and to describe the temporal structure of these behaviors by mathematical means. Contrary to the then dominant view, he showed that the presentation of a behavioral stimulus may not only have an immediate releasing (“phasic”) effect but also a long-lasting motivational (“tonic”) effect, and that these effects are just the two end-points of a spectrum of possibilities that might occur.
Based on the results of his ethological studies, Walter developed a general stochastic model of motivation. According to this concept, motivational actions are governed by excitable random processes in the central nervous system. Walter characterized such processes in terms of the stimuli they respond to, and their decay rates after stimulation. Today, the results of his behavioral work can be found in many textbooks on animal behavior, and they are likely to remain of major influence on ethologists for many years to come.
The neuroethological phase
Despite the elegance of his studies in the 1960s and early 1970s, Walter was well aware of the limitations of a purely behavioral analysis. Since his ultimate goal was to understand the physiological mechanisms that underlie behavior in an organism, he had to acquire additional expertise in neurobiology. The foundation for this step was laid in 1969 when he asked Ted Bullock in a letter whether a position would be available for him at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography of the University of California at San Diego in La Jolla, where Bullock headed the Neurobiology Unit. The move from Seewiesen to La Jolla, and thus the transition from ethology to neuroethology, materialized in 1972 when Heiligenberg joined the laboratory of Bullock as a postdoctoral fellow. This marked the beginning of the work that made him a world leader in neuroethology—the analysis of the neural basis of the behavior of weakly electric fish.
One year later, he was appointed to the faculty of UCSD and established his own research group. Another 3 years later, in 1976, he was promoted to the rank of full professor. In the same year, Ted Bullock introduced him to the habitat of electric fish in the Amazon. Over the following 17 years, ten more expeditions—to Surinam, Brazil, Panama, and Venezuela—followed. They all reflected another important aspect of Walter’s research philosophy: the attempt to relate the results of physiological experiments conducted under the rigor of the laboratory to observations of the behavior of the animal in its natural environment.
Walter’s fame as a world leader in neuroethology is primarily based on his work on the so-called “jamming avoidance response” of certain weakly electric fish. This behavior was first described by Akira Watanabe and Kimihisa Takeda (1963) in the glass knifefish Eigenmannia sp. This gymnotiform fish continuously generates, by means of an electric organ, a sinusoidal electric signal around its body. Although the discharges vary among individual fish within a species-specific frequency range of approximately 250–600 Hz, they are usually extremely constant in a given individual even over hours and days. One function of the electric organ discharges (EODs) is to mediate location of objects in the closer vicinity of the fish and to analyze their electric properties. This ability, commonly referred to as “electrolocation”, is based on the fact that objects that differ in their electrical impedance from the surrounding water cause distortions of the fish’s electric field. These distortions are sensed by electroreceptors located on the body surface and analyzed by specialized brain structures.
Together with his postdoctoral fellow Henning Scheich, Bullock had carried out a thorough characterization of the jamming avoidance response and made a computer model that accurately predicted the dynamics of the input–output relationship for a range of different stimuli (Bullock et al. 1972). These stimuli were defined frequency differences, dF (=frequency of the neighbor’s signal minus frequency of the fish’s signal), that were set and maintained by a feedback computer. The model suggested by Bullock and co-workers included several key parameters of the stimulus but lacked a measure of the assumed function, namely the accuracy of detecting objects. It was Walter Heiligenberg’s merit to overcome, within a year of his arrival in La Jolla, this deficit and to demonstrate that the jamming avoidance response and the electrolocation capability of Eigenmannia sp. are closely related to each other. By forcing the fish to avoid clashes with objects swung in a sinusoidal manner, he showed that contamination by signal frequencies in the range of the fish’s own frequency result in detrimental effects on the electrolocation system. To avoid such jamming, the fish shift their frequency so as to hold the difference in the discharge frequencies of the two fish at a level of dF of approximately 20 Hz.
In order to perform the jamming avoidance response, the fish must determine whether its own frequency is lower or higher than the frequency of the interfering signal. Contrary to expectation, the fish achieves this task not by using the frequency of the pacemaker nucleus in the medulla oblongata, whose oscillatory activity drives the electric organ discharge, as an internal reference. Instead, the decision of the fish in which direction to shift its frequency is exclusively based on the analysis of afferent information contained in the beat pattern that results from the superimposition of the two jamming EOD signals—its own and the neighbor’s. Specifically, the mixing of the two signals causes modulations at beat frequency of both amplitude and phase of the superimposed signal in reference to the pure fish signal. It was Walter Heiligenberg’s merit to have shown that analysis of the pattern of the amplitude and phase modulation enables the fish to determine which of the two signals has the higher and which the lower frequency, and thus to shift its own frequency in the “correct” direction. One direction is released when phase lag accompanies amplitude increase, and the other when phase lead coincides with a rise in amplitude.
Despite this convergence, there are no decisive higher-order neurons that are individually essential, and thus indispensable, for the execution of the jamming avoidance response. In the natural situation presumably not a single cell, but a number of cells activate the correct jamming avoidance response. The advantage of such a distributed organization in sensory processing is that the system can not only tolerate local loss of sensors and computational elements, but also afford to use “cheap” (as Walter used to call them) sensors in the periphery that are rather broadly tuned. Sufficiently high acuity of perception can still be centrally obtained by robust mechanisms of averaging and interpolation.
As a corollary, novel neuronal systems might originate in the course of evolution from such “cheap” parts that existed already earlier. New functions are achieved by modifying networks originally adapted to other functions. Since the need for new functions in the future cannot be anticipated, some imperfection in the design of the neuronal hardware inevitably will happen. This latter aspect was a core element of Walter’s understanding of evolution and contradicts the opinion of many people, including biologists, who believe that biological systems always reflect optimal solutions to a given problem.
Tragic meets happiness
Walter Heiligenberg’s life and death are of the kind that writers use for novels. From childhood, he was very interested in classical music, and later in his life he even thought about giving up science and devote himself entirely to music. This interest in music was shared with his first wife, Zsuzsa, a pianist from Hungary, with whom he had three children. After Zsuzsa died of cancer in 1991, Walter Heiligenberg re-married—again a musician, Wendy Thompson, who played violin at the renowned Bayerisches Rundfunk Symphonieorchester in Munich. Wendy and Walter had met through Hansjochem Autrum, who lived in the same apartment house in Munich as Wendy. Since Autrum was an enthusiast of classical music and often attended concerts of the Bayerisches Rundfunk Symphonieorchester, they knew each other well. When Autrum on his first and only trip ever to the USA visited the lab of Walter Heiligenberg, Wendy Thompson came to La Jolla as well, because she played at that time in Los Angeles. In 1993 Walter and Wendy married.
Following their marriage, Walter traveled back and forth between La Jolla and Munich, where Wendy continued to live and work. On 8 September 1994, he headed for San Diego. He was invited to give, on his way back, a lecture at Pittsburgh, and since his plane from Europe had arrived in Chicago earlier than expected, he decided to take a flight—US Air 427—different from the one for which he was scheduled. Just a few minutes before landing at Pittsburgh, the Boeing 737 went into a nosedive and crashed. All 132 people aboard the aircraft, included Walter, perished. Eighteen days after his death, Wendy gave birth to their daughter, Maria Clara. In its final report released 5 years after the crash, the National Transportation Safety Board concluded that the aircraft’s rudder, a moveable control surface hinged to the tail fin, became jammed for still unknown reasons, forcing the plane into an almost vertical roll at about 6,000 ft. (2,000 m).
Walter Heiligenberg’s way of doing science
Walter Heiligenberg’s fame as a researcher, which has not diminished even 12 years after his death, is not only based on his scientific achievements, but also on his rather unconventional way of doing science. Everybody who knew Walter remembers him as the most alive person they had ever met. His optimism was unlimited. He appeared to be driven by an inexhaustible source of energy that let him succeed where others did not even try. He disliked bureaucracy and formalities. Even at international conferences, he would give his talks clad in white turtle-neck sweater, tennis shorts, and beach sandals. He came into his laboratory every day, including Sundays and holidays, and it was certainly not more than a handful of days that he took off per year. He seemed to draw his satisfaction from running his own experiments, every day and all day long—patiently sitting at his “rig” (as he called it) that was packed with physiological equipment, exposing the brain of the tiny fish, performing delicate surgeries, searching over days and weeks for specific cells, until he finally found the right ones. This event was shared with the rest of the lab by a loud scream “look, look—there it is!”.
Every associate was also amazed how Walter managed to keep up with the literature, reviewed and edited manuscripts for this journal (as he did for many years), write grant applications, give stimulating lectures, receive visitors from all over the world, and maintain a large correspondence, without the assistance of a secretary, while at the same time regularly attended his wife’s and other concerts. He avoided overpopulating his lab, but welcomed pre- and postdoctoral associates with diverse backgrounds. At the time of his death, he had Ph.D. students taking their degrees in physics, marine biology, neuroscience, and philosophy. These students with diverse backgrounds formed the basis for the multidisciplinary approach employed in Walter’s studies. This approach included behavioral studies, neurophysiological experiments, neuroanatomical investigations, and computational analyses, and, shortly before his death, Walter and his group even entered the field of molecular biology.
We doubt that Walter ever formally sat down with students to discuss their progress. Nevertheless, he was an extremely inspiring advisor. He led by example, not by forcing a graduate student or a postdoc into a certain direction. This freedom had an enormous impact upon the creation of new directions of studies. He encouraged people of his group to go to other laboratories to learn new techniques and enter new fields. A good number of postdocs, and even graduate students, started completely new projects while still in his lab, independently of his own work, but backed by his unspoken support. They took these projects with them when they left the lab and established their own research groups. These projects include exploration of the neural and endocrine basis of communicatory behavior in weakly electric fish (Meyer 1984; Meyer et al. 1984; Keller et al. 1986, 1991; Kawasaki et al. 1988; Metzner and Heiligenberg 1991; for reviews see Metzner 1999; Zupanc 2002); the study of plasticity of sense organs and neuronal systems in adult fish (Zupanc and Heiligenberg 1989; Zupanc and Zupanc 1992; for review see Zupanc and Maler 1997; Bastian and Zakon 2005; Zupanc 2006); and the phylogenetic analysis of electric fishes using a combination of morphology, electrophysiology, and mitochondrial sequence data (Alves-Gomes et al. 1995). A significant number of papers were published from his lab without his name listed as a co-author—a degree of independence unthinkable in most other labs. It is especially this way of doing science and of opening new vistas that will continue to inspire, for many years to come, his students and others who had the privilege to know him. The review articles in this issue, written by former students, collaborators, and friends, give impressive testimony of this.
We thank Masashi Kawasaki, Mark Konishi, and Marianne M. Zupanc for helpful comments on the manuscript. This article was written while G. K. H. Z. was a visiting scholar at the Department of Neurosciences of UCSD in La Jolla.