Journal of comparative physiology

, Volume 99, Issue 3, pp 187–210 | Cite as

The optomotor equilibrium of theDrosophila navigation system

  • Karl Georg Götz
Article

Summary

In his discussion of the optomotor behaviour Kalmus claimed in 1964 that the visual systems of insects continuously resolve horizontal displacements relative to the surroundings into rotatory and translatory components, each associated with optomotor feedback of particular quality and sign. The feedback is supposed to achieve, simultaneously, minimization of the rotatory movements and maximization of the translatory movements, a behaviour repeatedly observed with actively moving insects such as the fruitflyDrosophila melanogaster.

The present approach takes into account that the output of movement detectors in the visual system of insects is necessarily equivocal with respect to the speed of the stimulus (e.g. zero output at both zero and infinite speed). Decomposition of the stimulus is not feasible under these conditions. It is obviously the composite stimulus to which the insects respond. Moreover, there is experimental evidence that optomotor feedback on the translatory movement is not necessarily a response-determining factor in insects. The optomotor behaviour of the walking fruitfly is sufficiently described by the sum of itsrotatory responses to the composite stimuli on either side.

A diagram representing the expected rotatory response of the walking fruitfly as a function of both the rotatory and the translatory stimulus component is used to derive the prevailing traits of the behaviour in resting, rotating and floating environments, respectively. Most conspicuous is the inversion of the course-control response in about one half of the possible states of stimulation. This effect gives rise to at least some of the apparently spontaneous turns of actively moving insects which have been ascribed by v. Holst and Mittelstaedt to efferent commands from higher centres of the brain, according to their principle of reafference. The present results merely disprove the necessity of these commands. Inversion of the response is also an inherent property of the course-control systems of the optomotorically active insects. The expected increase of these inversions with closer proximity of the visual environment is found by observation of walking fruitflies.

The relation between the rotatory and translatory movements of the freely walking fly and its state of stimulation in a given environment is used to describe the expected behaviour in terms of the most probable transition of state. The approach is based on estimates of the power required by the fly in order to maintain a given state against the torque that is produced by its course-control system in response to the optomotor stimulation. The most probable transition of state is apparently determined by the tendency of the fly to decrease the power requirement by appropriate adaptation of its rotatory movement. The transition may come to an end in one of the states of minimum power requirement where the speed of the rotating fly is held in a stable optomotor equilibrium.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Benzer, S.: (unpublished)Google Scholar
  2. Gavel, L. v.: Die “kritische Streifenbreite” als Maß der Sehschärfe beiDrosophila melanogaster. Z. vergl. Physiol.27, 80–135 (1939)Google Scholar
  3. Götz, K. G.: Optomotorische Untersuchung des visuellen Systems einiger Augenmutanten der FruchtfliegeDrosophilia. Kybernetik2, 77–92 (1964)Google Scholar
  4. Götz, K. G.: Flight control inDrosophilia by visual perception of motion. Kybernetik4, 199–208 (1968)Google Scholar
  5. Götz, K. G.: Fractionation ofDrosophila populations according to optomotor traits. J. exp. Biol.52, 419–436 (1970)Google Scholar
  6. Götz, K. G.: Principles of optomotor reactions in insects. Bibl. ophthal. (Basel)82, 251–259 (1972a)Google Scholar
  7. Götz, K. G.: Processing of cues from the moving environment in theDrosophila navigation system. In: Information processing in the visual system of Arthropods, ed. R. Wehner, p. 255–263. Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer 1972bGoogle Scholar
  8. Götz, K. G., Wenking, H.: Visual control of locomotion in the walking fruitflyDrosophila. J. comp. Physiol.85, 235–266 (1973)Google Scholar
  9. Hecht, S., Wald, G.: The visual acuity and intensity discrimination ofDrosophila. J. gen. Physiol.17, 517–547 (1934)Google Scholar
  10. Heisenberg, M.: Comparative behavioural studies on two visual mutants ofDrosophila. J. comp. Physiol.80, 119–136 (1972)Google Scholar
  11. Heisenberg, M., Götz, K. G.: The use of mutations for the partial degradation of vision inDrosophila melanogaster. J. comp. Physiol.98, 217–241 (1975)Google Scholar
  12. Horn, E., Wehner, R.: The mechanism of visual pattern fixation in the walking fly,Drosophila melanogaster. J. comp. Physiol., in press (1975)Google Scholar
  13. Kalmus, H.: The optomotor responses of some eye mutants ofDrosophila. J. Genet.45, 206–213 (1943)Google Scholar
  14. Kalmus, H.: Optomotor responses inDrosophila andMusca. Physiol. Comp. ('s Grav.)1, 127–147 (1949)Google Scholar
  15. Kalmus, H.: Animals as mathematicians. Nature (Lond.)202, 1156–1160 (1964)Google Scholar
  16. Land, M. F., Collett, T. S.: Chasing behaviour of houseflies (Fannia canicularis). J. comp. Physiol.89, 331–357 (1974)Google Scholar
  17. Meyer, H. W.: Spontane Formbevorzugung bei Fliegen. (In preparation)Google Scholar
  18. Mittelstaedt, H.: Reafferenzprinzip — Analogie und Kritik. In: Vorträge der Erlanger Physiologentagung 1970, ed. W. D. Keidel, K.-H. Plattig. Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer 1971Google Scholar
  19. Mittelstaedt, H., Holst, E. v.: Reafferenzprinzip und Optomotorik. Zool. Anz.151, 253–259 (1953)Google Scholar
  20. Poggio, T., Reichardt, W.: A theory of the pattern induced flight orientation of the flyMusca domestica. Kybernetik12, 185–203 (1973)Google Scholar
  21. Reichardt, W.: Musterinduzierte Flugorientierung, Verhaltens-Versuche an der FliegeMusca domestica. Naturwissenschaften60, 122–138 (1973)Google Scholar
  22. Reichardt, W., Poggio, T.: A theory of the pattern induced flight orientation of the flyMusca domestica. II. Biol. Cybernetics18, 69–80 (1975)Google Scholar
  23. Reichardt, W., Wenking, H.: Optical detection and fixation of objects by fixed flying flies. Naturwissenschaften56, 424–425 (1969)Google Scholar
  24. Wehner, R.: Spontaneous pattern preferences ofDrosophila melanogaster to black areas in various parts of the visual field. J. Insect Physiol.18, 1531–1543 (1972)Google Scholar
  25. Wehner, R., Gartenmann, G., Jungi, T.: Contrast perception in eye colour mutants ofDrosophila melanogaster andDrosophila subobscura. J. Insect Physiol.15, 815–823 (1969)Google Scholar
  26. Wehner, R., Wehner, S.: Calculation of visual receptor spacing inDrosophila melanogaster by pattern recognition experiments. J. comp. Physiol.82, 165–177 (1973)Google Scholar
  27. Zimmermann, G.: Der Einfluß stehender und bewegter Musteranteile auf die optomotorische Reaktion der FliegeDrosophila. Thesis. Tübingen 1973Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karl Georg Götz
    • 1
  1. 1.Max-Planck-Institut für Biologische KybernetikTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations