Animal Cognition

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 613–619 | Cite as

Three-dimensional spatial cognition: information in the vertical dimension overrides information from the horizontal

Short Communication

Abstract

Fish live in three-dimensional environments, through which they swim with three translational and three rotational degrees of freedom. Navigating through such environments is recognised as a difficult problem, yet fish, and other animals that swim and fly, achieve this regularly. Despite this, the vast majority of research has considered how animals navigate horizontally from place to place and has ignored the vertical component. Here, we test the importance of the vertical axis of space for fish solving a three-dimensional spatial cognition task. We trained banded tetras (Astyanax fasciatus) to learn the route towards a goal in a rotating Y-maze in which the arms led either up and left or down and right in an environment that allowed access to visual landmarks providing horizontal and vertical information. Our results revealed that the landmarks increased navigational efficiency during training. However, these landmarks were ignored when the horizontal and vertical components were placed in conflict with each other by rotating the maze 90° during testing. From this surprising result, we conclude that the cues that are present in the vertical axis (presumably hydrostatic pressure) override landmark cues that have been shown to be salient in experiments that only consider the horizontal component of space.

Keywords

Spatial cognition Navigation Three dimensions Fish Orientation Volumes 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Tony Price and John Hogg for constructing the Y-maze and Julian Howe and the biomedical sciences technicians for technical help. We are also grateful to Adrian Thomas and Dora Biro for helpful discussions and comments on the manuscript. This research was funded by a Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council doctoral training grant awarded to R.I.H., a Royal Society Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowship and L’Oreal UK Women in Science Fellowship to T.B.d.P, and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/H01103X/1).

References

  1. Blaxter JHS (1980) The effect of hydrostatic pressure on fishes. In: Ali MA (ed) Environmental physiology of fishes. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Blaxter JHS, Tytler P (1972) Pressure discrimination in teleost fish. Symp Soc Exp Biol 26:417–443Google Scholar
  3. Blaxter JHS, Tytler P (1978) Physiology and function of the swimbladder. Adv Comp Physiol Biochem 7:311–367PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Braithwaite VA, Burt de Perera T (2006) Short-range orientation in fish: How fish map space. Mar Freshw Behav Physiol 39:37–47Google Scholar
  5. Burt de Perera T (2004a) Fish can encode order in their spatial map. Proc Biol Sci 271:2131–2134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burt de Perera T (2004b) Spatial parameters encoded in the spatial map of the blind Mexican cave fish, Astyanax fasciatus. Anim Behav 68:291–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burt de Perera T, Macias Garcia C (2003) Amarillo fish (Girardinichthys multiradiatus) use visual landmarks to orient in space. Ethology 109:341–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burt de Perera T, De Vos A, Guilford T (2005) The vertical component of a fish’s spatial map. Anim Behav 70:405–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheng K (2008) Whither geometry? Troubles of the geometric module. Trends Cogn Sci 12:355–361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheung A, Stürzl W, Zeil J, Cheng K (2008) The information content of panoramic images II: view-based navigation in nonrectangular experimental arenas. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 34:15–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grah G, Wehner R, Ronacher B (2005) Path integration in a three-dimensional maze: ground distance estimation keeps desert ants Cataglyphis fortis on course. J Exp Biol 208:4005–4011PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grah G, Wehner R, Ronacher B (2007) Desert ants do not acquire and use a three-dimensional global vector. Front Zool 4:17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grobety MC, Schenk F (1992) Spatial-learning in a 3-dimensional maze. Anim Behav 43:1011–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Henderson J, Hurly TA, Healy SD (2001) Rufous hummingbirds’ memory for flower location. Anim Behav 61:981–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Henderson J, Hurly TA, Healy SD (2006) Spatial relational learning in rufous hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus). Anim Cogn 9:201–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holbrook RI, Burt de Perera T (2009) Separation of vertical and horizontal information simplifies the problem of navigating through a three-dimensional environment in fish. Anim Behav 78:241–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holbrook RI, Burt de Perera T (2011) Fish navigation in the vertical dimension: can fish use hydrostatic pressure to determine depth? Fish Fish (in press)Google Scholar
  18. Hughes RN, Blight CM (1999) Algorithmic behaviour and spatial memory are used by two intertidal fish species to solve the radial maze. Anim Behav 58:601–613PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hughes RN, Blight CM (2000) Two intertidal fish species use visual association learning to track the status of food patches in a radial maze. Anim Behav 59:613–621PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McCutcheon FH (1966) Pressure sensitivity, reflexes, and buoyancy responses in teleosts. Anim Behav 14:204–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nardi D, Bingman VP (2009) Pigeon (Columba livia) encoding of a goal-location: The relative importance of shape geometry and slope. J Comp Psychol 123:204–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nardi D, Nitsch K, Bingman VP (2010) Slope-driven goal location behavior in pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 36:430–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Odling-Smee L, Braithwaite VA (2003) The influence of habitat stability on landmark use during spatial learning in the three-spined stickleback. Anim Behav 65:701–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Odling-Smee L, Simpson SD, Braithwaite VA (2006) The role of learning in fish orientation. In: Brown C, Laland KN, Krause J (eds) Fish cognition and behaviour. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Pearce JM, Good MA, Jones PM, McGregor A (2004) Transfer of spatial behavior between different environments: implications for theories of spatial learning and for the role of the hippocampus in spatial learning. J Exp Psychol 30:135–147Google Scholar
  26. Qutob Z (1962) The swimbladder of fishes as a pressure receptor. Arch Neerlandaises Zool 15:1–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rahmann H, Anken RH (2000) Gravitational neurobiology of fish. Adv Space Res 25:1985–1995PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reese ES (1989) Orientation behavior of butterflyfishes (family Chaetodontidae) on coral reefs - spatial-learning of route specific landmarks and cognitive maps. Environ Biol Fish 25:79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shettleworth S (2010) Cognition, evolution and behavior. Oxford University Press, OxofrdGoogle Scholar
  30. Sovrano VA, Bisazza A, Vallortigara G (2005) Animals’ use of landmarks and metric information to reorient: effects of the size of the experimental space. Cognition 97:121–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sovrano VA, Bisazza A, Valortigara G (2007) How fish do geometry in large and small spaces. Anim Cogn 10:47–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sutherland L, Holbrook RI, Burt de Perera T (2009) Sensory system affects orientational strategy in a short-range spatial task in blind and eyed morphs of the fish, Astyanax fasciatus. Ethology 115:504–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sutton JE (2009) What is geometric information and how do animals use it? Behav Process 80:339–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Taylor GK, Holbrook RI, Burt de Perera T (2010) Fractional rate of change of swim-bladder volume is reliably related to absolute depth during vertical displacements in teleost fish. J R Soc Interface 7:1379–1382PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Warburton K (1990) The use of local landmarks by foraging goldfish. Anim Behav 40:500–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Warburton K (2003) Learning of foraging skills by fish. Fish Fish 4:203–215Google Scholar
  37. Watanabe S, Takabayashi A, Tanaka M, Yanagihara D (1991) Neurovestibular physiology in fish. In: Bonting S (ed) Advances in space biology and medicine. JAI Press, Tokyo, vol 1, pp 99–128Google Scholar
  38. Wiegmann DD, Wiegmann DA, MacNeal J, Gafford J (2000) Transposition of flower height by bumble bee foragers (Bombus impatiens). Anim Cogn 3:85–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wohlgemuth S, Ronacher B, Wehner R (2001) Ant odometry in the third dimension. Nature 411:795–798PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Animal Behaviour Research Group, Department of ZoologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations