Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Electrolocation in the presence of jamming signals: behavior

  • 73 Accesses

  • 29 Citations

Summary

Electrolocation behavior ofApteronotus leptorhynchus was studied by monitoring the animal's ability to maintain orientation to a variety of moving electrolocation targets. The primary goal of this study was to determine the relative effectiveness of various types of electrical ‘jamming signals’ in disrupting electrolocation performance.

  1. 1.

    Two measures of electrolocation performance were used: The latency between the electrolocation target motion and the fish's following response, and the minimum distance separating the fish from the target during the target movement sequence. Latency increased and minimum fish-target distance decreased as target size was decreased, and when large diameter ceramic targets were used as control stimuli the fish were less able to avoid, and frequently collided with, these ‘electrically transparent’ objects.

  2. 2.

    Four types of jamming signals were used in attempts to mask the electrosensory input used for electrolocation. Broad-band noise and sinusoidal signals, different in frequency by a few Hz from the animal's personal electric organ discharge (DF stimuli), were used to jam the tuberous electroreceptors. Five Hz and 50 Hz sinusoidal signals were used to jam the low-frequency or ampullary receptor system. Both the noise and the DF stimuli were effective in reducing electrolocation performance, and the threshold intensity for behavior deterioration was about three-fold lower for DF stimuli as compared to the noise. The rate of change of response deterioration as a function of increasing jamming intensity was, however, not different for these two types of stimuli. Neither the 50 Hz nor the 5 Hz jamming signals caused electrolocation deterioration when presented alone. However, 5 Hz jamming, when added to either the noise or DF jamming, did result in significant increments in response deterioration. This suggests that the ampullary receptors can provide supplementary information for electrolocation.

  3. 3.

    Electrolocation performance deterioration was also studied with various difference frequencies between an animal's EOD and the sinusoidal jamming stimulus. Increasing DF results in decreased electrolocation deterioration, but even at the highest DF frequencies used (128 Hz) significant response degradation was observed.

  4. 4.

    The apparent differences in the effectiveness of noise and DF stimulation in reducing electrolocation performance are largely accounted for by the differential effects of the tuberous electroreceptor filter characteristics on these two types of signals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Abbreviations

CV :

coefficient of variation

DF :

difference frequency

EOD :

electric organ discharge

rms :

root-mean-square

References

  1. Bastian J (1976) The range of electrolocation: A comparison of electroreceptor responses and the responses of cerebellar neurons in a gymnotid fish. J Comp Physiol 108:193–210

  2. Bastian J (1981a) Electrolocation. I: An analysis of the effects of moving objects and other electrical stimuli on the electro-receptor activity ofApteronotus albifrons. J Comp Physiol 144:465–479

  3. Bastian J (1981b) Electrolocation. II: The effects of moving objects and other electrical stimuli on the activities of two categories of posterior lateral line lobe cells inApteronotus albifrons. J Comp Physiol 144:481–494

  4. Bastian J (1986) Electrolocation: behavior, anatomy, and physiology. In: Bullock TH, Heiligenberg W (eds) Electroreception. Wiley, New York, pp 577–611

  5. Bastian J (1987) Electrolocation in the presence of jamming signals: electroreceptor physiology. J Comp Physiol A 161:825–836

  6. Bombardieri RA, Feng AS (1977) Behavioral analysis of object detection (electrolocation) in the weakly electric fishApteronotus albifrons. Soc Neurosci Abstr 3:363

  7. Bullock TH (1982) Electroreception. Annu Rev Neurosci 5:121–170

  8. Bullock TH, Hamstra RH Jr, Scheich H (1972) The jamming avoidance response of high frequency electric fish. I. General features. J Comp Physiol 77:1–22

  9. Heiligenberg W (1973) Electrolocation of objects in the electric fishEigenmannia (Rhamphichthyidae, Gymnotoidei). J Comp Physiol 87:137–164

  10. Heiligenberg W (1975) Theoretical and experimental approaches to spatial aspects of electrolocation. J Comp Physiol 103:247–272

  11. Heiligenberg W (1976) Electrolocation and jamming avoidance in the mormyrid fishBrienomyrus. J Comp Physiol 109:357–372

  12. Heiligenberg W (1977) Principles of electrolocation and jamming avoidance in electric fish. A neuroethological approach. In: Braitenberg V (ed) Studies of brain function, vol 1. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 1–85

  13. Heiligenberg W (1986) Jamming avoidance responses: model systems for neuroethology. In: Bullock TH, Heiligenberg W (eds) Electroreception. Wiley, New York, pp 613–649

  14. Hopkins CD (1976) Stimulus filtering and electroreception in three species of gymnotoid fish. J Comp Physiol 111:171–207

  15. Kalmijn AJ (1974) The detection of electric fields from inanimate and animate sources other than electric organs. In: Fessard A (ed) Electroreceptors and other specialized receptors in lower vertebrates (Handbook of sensory physiology, vol III/3). Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 148–194

  16. Knudsen EI (1974) Behavioral thresholds to electric signals in high frequency electric fish. J Comp Physiol 91:333–353

  17. Lissmann HW, Machin KE (1958) The mechanism of object location inGymnarchus niloticus and similar fish. J Exp Biol 35:451–486

  18. Matsubara J, Heiligenberg W (1978) How well do electric fish electrolocate under jamming? J Comp Physiol 125:285–290

  19. Partridge BL, Heiligenberg W, Matsubara J (1981) The neural basis of a sensory filter in the jamming avoidance response: No grandmother cells in sight. J Comp Physiol 145:153–168

  20. Rose G, Keller C, Heiligenberg W (1987) ‘Ancestral’ neural mechanisms of electrolocation suggest a substrate for the evolution of the jamming avoidance response. J Comp Physiol A 160:491–500

  21. Uter TG (1977) A real-time video system for tracking one-dimensional movements of two objects. IEEE trans biomedical engineering January: 75–78

  22. Yuthas J (1985) Motor patterns evoked by stimulation of the optic tectum in two species of weakly electric fish. Soc Neurosci Abstr 11:1021

  23. Zakon HH (1986) The electroreceptive periphery. In: Bullock TH, Heiligenberg W (eds) Electroreception. Wiley, New York, pp 103–156

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bastian, J. Electrolocation in the presence of jamming signals: behavior. J. Comp. Physiol. 161, 811–824 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00610223

Download citation

Keywords

  • Target Motion
  • Sinusoidal Signal
  • Electric Organ
  • Electric Organ Discharge
  • Response Deterioration