Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp 1077–1091 | Cite as

Perception and discrimination of movement and biological motion patterns in fish

  • V. SchluesselEmail author
  • N. Kortekamp
  • J. A. Ortiz Cortes
  • A. Klein
  • H. Bleckmann
Original Paper

Abstract

Vision is of primary importance for many fish species, as is the recognition of movement. With the exception of one study, assessing the influence of conspecific movement on shoaling behaviour, the perception of biological motion in fish had not been studied in a cognitive context. The aim of the present study was therefore to assess the discrimination abilities of two teleost species in regard to simple and complex movement patterns of dots and objects, including biological motion patterns using point and point-light displays (PDs and PLDs). In two-alternative forced-choice experiments, in which choosing the designated positive stimulus was food-reinforced, fish were first tested in their ability to distinguish the video of a stationary black dot on a light background from the video of a moving black dot presented at different frequencies and amplitudes. While all fish succeeded in learning the task, performance declined with decreases in either or both parameters. In subsequent tests, cichlids and damselfish distinguished successfully between the videos of two dots moving at different speeds and amplitudes, between two moving dot patterns (sinus vs. expiring sinus) and between animated videos of two moving organisms (trout vs. eel). Transfer tests following the training of the latter showed that fish were unable to identify the positive stimulus (trout) by means of its PD alone, thereby indicating that the ability of humans to spontaneously recognize an organism based on its biological motion may not be present in fish. All participating individuals successfully discriminated between two PDs and two PLDs after a short period of training, indicating that biological motions presented in form of PLDs are perceived and can be distinguished. Results were the same for the presentation of dark dots on a light background and light dots on a dark background.

Keywords

Cognition Behavior Learning Teleost 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank S. Braun for animal caretaking, maintenance and repairs, S. Büttner and U. Dung for help with the training of fish and F. Kaldenbach for help with the construction of video presentations. The research reported herein was performed under the guidelines established by the current German animal protection law. This study was funded by a DFG Grant to VS (SCHL1919/4-1).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MPG 1102 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (MPG 790 kb)

Supplementary material 3 (MPG 910 kb)

Supplementary material 4 (MPG 5196 kb)

Supplementary material 5 (MPG 12100 kb)

Supplementary material 6 (MPG 618 kb)

10071_2015_876_MOESM7_ESM.avi (2.7 mb)
Supplementary material 7 (AVI 2786 kb)

Supplementary material 8 (MPG 464 kb)

Supplementary material 9 (MPG 518 kb)

Supplementary material 10 (MPG 518 kb)

Supplementary material 11 (MPG 62 kb)

Supplementary material 12 (MPG 830 kb)

References

  1. Abaid N, Bartolini T, Macrì S, Porfiri M (2012a) Zebrafish responds differentially to a robotic fish of varying aspect ratio, tail beat frequency, noise, and color. Behav Brain Res 233:545–553CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Abaid N, Spinello C, Laut J, Porfiri M (2012b) Zebrafish (Danio rerio) responds to images animated by mathematical models of animal grouping. Behav Brain Res 232:406–410CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Agrillo C, Petrazzini MEM, Dadda M (2013) Illusionary patterns are fishy for fish, too. Front Neural Circuits 7:137. doi: 10.3389/fncir.2013.00137 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Agrillo C, Miletto Petrazzini ME, Bisazza A (2014) At the root of math: numerical abilities in fish. In: Geary DC, Berch DB, Koepke KM (eds) Evolutionary origins and early development of basic number processing. Academic Press, Waltham, pp 3–27Google Scholar
  5. Baldauf SA, Kullmann H, Thünken T, Winter S, Bakker TCM (2009) Computer animation as a tool to study preferences in the cichlid Pelviachromis teaniatus. J Fish Biol 75:738–746CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bisazza A, Brown C (2011) Lateralization of cognitive functions in fish. In: Brown C, Laland KN, Krause J (eds) Fish cognition and behavior, 2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Cambridge, pp 300–324Google Scholar
  7. Blake R (1993) Cats perceive biological motion. Psychol Sci 4:54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Block BA (1986) Structure of the brain and eye heater tissue in marlins, sailfish and spearfish. J Morphol 190:169–189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown J, Kaplan G, Rogers LJ, Vallortigara G (2010) Perception of biological motion in common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus): by females only. Anim Cogn 13:555–564CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown C, Laland K, Krause J (2011) Fish cognition and behavior, 2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bshary R, Wickler W, Fricke H (2002) Fish cognition: a primate’s eye view. Anim Cogn 5:1–23CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Carleton K (2009) Cichlid fish visual systems: mechanisms of spectral tuning. Int Zool 4:75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carleton KL, Harosi FI, Kocher TD (2000) Visual pigments of African cichlid fishes: evidence for ultraviolet vision from microspectrophotometry and DNA sequences. Vis Res 40:879–890CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark DT (1981) Visual responses in developing zebrafish. University of Oregon Press, EugeneGoogle Scholar
  15. Collin SP, Marshall NJ (2003) Sensory processing in aquatic environments. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cutting JE, Kozlowski LT (1977) Recognizing friends by their walk: gait perception without familiarity cues. Bull Psychon Soc 9:353–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Darmaillacq AS, Dickel L, Rahmani N, Shashar N (2011) Do reef fish, Variola louti and Scarus niger, perform amodal completion? Evidence from a field study. J Comp Psychol 125:273–277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Dittrich WH, Lea SEG (1993) Motion as a natural category for pigeons—generalization and a feature-positive effect. J Exp Anal Behav 59:115–129CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Dittrich WH, Troscianko T, Lea SEG, Morgan D (1996) Perception of emotion from dynamic light-point displays represented in dance. Perception 25:727–738CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Dittrich WH, Lea SEG, Barrett J, Gurr PR (1998) Categorization of natural movements by pigeons: visual concept discrimination and biological motion. J Exp Anal Behav 70:281–299CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Douglas RH, Partridge JC, Marshall NJ (1998) The eyes of deep-sea fish I: lens pigmentation, tapeta and visual pigments. Prog Ret Eye Res 17:597–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Douglas RH, Hunt DM, Bowmaker JK (2003) Spectral sensitivity tuning in the deep-sea. In: Collin SP, Marshall NJ (eds) Sensory processing in aquatic environments. Springer, New York, pp 323–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fernald RD (1988) Aquatic adaptations in fish eyes. In: Atema J, Fay RR, Popper AN, Tavolga WN (eds) Sensory biology of aquatic animals. Springer, New York, pp 435–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Foley AG, Gannon S, Rombach-Mullan N, Prendergast A, Barry C, Cassidy AW, Regan CM (2012) Class I histone deacetylase inhibition ameliorates social cognition and cell adhesion molecule plasticity deficits in a rodent model of autism spectrum disorder. Neuropharmacology 63:750–760CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Fritsches KA, Marshall NJ, Warrant EJ (2003) Retinal specializations in the blue marlin: eyes designed for sensitivity to low light level. Mar Fresh Res 54:333–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fritsches KA, Brill RW, Warrant EJ (2005) Warm eyes provide superior vision in swordfishes. Curr Biol 15:55–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Fuss T, Bleckmann H, Schluessel V (2014a) Visual discrimination abilities in grey bamboo sharks (Chiloscyllium griseum). Zoology 117:104–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Fuss T, Bleckmann H, Schluessel V (2014b) The brain creates illusions not just for us: turns out sharks (Chiloscyllium griseum) can ‘see the magic’ as well. Front Neural Circuits 8:24. doi: 10.3389/fncir.2014.00024 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Gerlai R, Fernandes Y, Pereira T (2009) Zebrafish (Danio rerio) responds to the animated image of a predator: towards the development of an automated aversive task. Behav Brain Res 201:318–324CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Gierszewski S, Bleckmann H, Schluessel V (2013) Cognitive abilities in Malawi cichlids (Pseudotropheus sp.): matching-to-sample and image/mirror-image discriminations. PLoS ONE 8:e57363CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Gori S, Agrillo C, Dadda M, Bisazza A (2014) Do fish perceive illusory motion? Sci Rep 4:6443. doi: 10.1038/srep06443 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Guthrie DM (1986) Role of vision in fish behaviour. In: Pitcher T (ed) The behaviour of teleost fishes. Springer, New York, pp 75–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Guthrie DM, Munz WAR (1993) Role of vision in fish behavior. In: Pitcher T (ed) Behaviour of teleost fishes, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 89–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hawryshyn CW (1992) Polarization vision in fish. Am Sci 80:164–175Google Scholar
  35. Hawryshyn CW (2003) Mechanisms of ultraviolet polarization vision in fishes. In: Collin SP, Marshall NJ (eds) Sensory processing in aquatic environments. Springer, New York, pp 252–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Herman LM, Morrel-Samuels P, Pack AA (1990) Bottlenosed dolphin and human recognition of veridical and degraded video displays of an artificial gestural language. J Exp Psychol Gen 119:215–230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Herter K (1929) Dressurversuche an Fischen. Report aus dem zoologischen Institut der Universität BerlinGoogle Scholar
  38. Herter K (1930) Weitere Dressurversuche an Fischen. Report aus dem Zoologischen Institut der Universität BerlinGoogle Scholar
  39. Hueter RE, Mann DA, Maruska KP, Sisneros JA, Demski LS (2004) Sensory biology of elasmobranchs. In: Carrier JC, Musick JA, Heithaus MR (eds) Biology of sharks and their relatives. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 325–368Google Scholar
  40. Jimenez Ortega L, Stoppa K, Güntürkün O, Troje NF (2009) Vision during head bobbing: are pigeons capable of shape discrimination during the thrust phase? Exp Brain Res 199:313–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Johannson G (1973) Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Percept Psychophys 14:201–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jones RB, Larkins C, Hughes BO (1996) Approach/avoidance responses of domestic chicks to familiar and unfamiliar video images of biologically neutral stimuli. Appl Anim Behav Sci 48:81–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Karplus I, Katzenstein R, Menachem G (2006) Predator recognition and social facilitation of predator avoidance in coral reef fish Dascyllus marginatus juveniles. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 319:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Katzir G (1981) Visual aspects of species recognition in the damselfish Dascyllus aruanus L. (Pisces, Pomacentridae). Anim Behav 29:842–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Keenleyside MHA (1991) Cichlid fishes—behaviour, ecology and evolution. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Knight ME, Turner GF (1999) Reproductive isolation among closely related Lake Malawi cichlids: can males recognize conspecific females by visual cues? Anim Behav 58:761–768CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Kozlowski LT, Cutting JE (1977) Recognizing the sex of a walker from a dynamic point light display. Percept Psychophys 21:575–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kuhlmeier VA, Troje NF, Lee V (2010) Young infants detect the direction of biological motion in point-light displays. Infancy 15:83–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. MacKinnon LM, Troje NF, Dringenberg HC (2010) Do rats (Rattus norvegicus) perceive biological motion? Exp Brain Res 205:571–576CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Marshall NJ, Vorobyev M (2003) The design of color signals and color vision in fishes. In: Collin SP, Marshall NJ (eds) Sensory processing in aquatic environments. Springer, New York, pp 194–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nakayama K (1985) Biological image motion processing: a review. Vis Res 25:625–660CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Nakayasu T, Watanabe E (2014) Biological motion stimuli are attractive to medaka fish. Anim Cogn 17:559–575CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Neumeyer C (2003) Color vision in fishes and its neural basis. In: Collin SP, Marshall NJ (eds) Sensory processing in aquatic environments. Springer, New York, pp 223–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nieder A (2002) Seeing more than meets the eye: processing of illusory contours in animals. J Comp Physiol A 188:249–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Odling-Smee LC, Simpson SD, Braithwaite VA (2006) The role of learning in fish orientation. In: Brown C, Laland K, Krause J (eds) Fish cognition and behaviour. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 166–185Google Scholar
  56. Omori E, Watanabe S (1996) Discrimination of Johansson’s stimuli in pigeons. Int J Comp Psychol 9:92Google Scholar
  57. Orger MB, Smear MC, Anstis SM, Baier H (2000) Perception of Fourier and non-Fourier motion by larval zebrafish. Nat Neurosci 3:1128–1133CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Parron C, Deruelle C, Fagot J (2007) Processing of biological motion point-light displays by baboons (Papio papio). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Proc 33:381–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pavlova M, Krägeloh-Mann I, Birbaumer N, Sokolov A (2002) Biological motion shown backwards: the apparent-facing effect. Perception 31:435–443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Pica P, Jackson S, Blake R, Troje NF (2011) Comparing biological motion perception in two distinct human societies. PLoS ONE 6(12):e28391CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Poizner H, Bellugi U, Lutes-Driscoll V (1981) Perception of American sign language in dynamic point-light displays. J Exp Psychol Hum 7:430–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Regolin L, Tommasi L, Vallortigara G (2000) Visual perception of biological motion in newly hatched chicks as revealed by an imprinting procedure. Anim Cogn 3:53–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rodriguez F, Broglio C, Durán E, Gómez Y, Salas C (2006) Neural mechanisms of learning in teleost fishes. In: Brown C, Laland K, Krause J (eds) Fish cognition and behaviour. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 243–277Google Scholar
  64. Rogers LJ, Vallortigara G, Andrew RJ (2013) Divided brains. The biology and behaviour of brain asymmetries. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Salva OR, Sovrano VA, Vallortigara G (2014) What can fish brains tell us about visual perception? Front Neural Circuits 8:119. doi: 10.3389/fncir.2014.00119 Google Scholar
  66. Schluessel V (2015) Who would have thought that ‘jaws’ also has brains? Cognitive functions in elasmobranchs. Anim Cogn 18:19–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Schluessel V, Bleckmann H (2005) Spatial memory and orientation strategies in the elasmobranch Potamotrygon motoro. J Comp Physiol A 191:695–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schluessel V, Fricke G, Bleckmann H (2012) Visual discrimination and object categorization in the cichlid Pseudotropheus sp. Anim Cogn 15:525–537CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Schluessel V, Kraniotakes H, Bleckmann H (2014a) Visual discrimination of rotated 3D objects in Malawi Cichlids (Pseudotropheus sp.): a first indication for form constancy in fishes. Anim Cogn 17:359–371CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Schluessel V, Beil O, Weber T, Bleckmann H (2014b) Symmetry perception in sharks (Chiloscyllium griseum) and cichlids (Pseudotropheus sp.). Anim Cogn 17:1187–1205CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Shashar N, Rosenthal GG, Caras T, Manor S, Katzir G (2005) Species recognition in the blackbordered damselfish Dascyllus marginatus (Rüppell): an evaluation of computer-animated playback techniques. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 318:111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Siebeck UE, Wallis GM, Litherland L (2008) Colour vision in reef fish. J Exp Biol 211:354–360CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Siebeck UE, Litherland L, Wallis GM (2009) Shape learning and discrimination in reef fish. J Exp Biol 212:2113–2119CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Siebeck UE, Parker A, Sprenger D, Mäthger LM, Wallis G (2010) A species of reef fish that uses ultraviolet patterns for covert face recognition. Curr Biol 20:407–410CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Siegel RM, Andersen RA (1988) Perception of the three-dimensional structure from motion in monkey and man. Nature 331:259–261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Sovrano VA, Bisazza A (2008) Recognition of partly occluded objects by fish. Anim Cog 11:161–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sovrano VA, Bisazza A (2009) Perception of subjective contours in fish. Perception 38:479–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sovrano VA, Rainoldi C, Bisazza A, Vallortigara G (1999) Roots of brain specializations: preferential left-eye use during mirror-image inspection in six species of teleost fish. Behav Brain Res 106:175–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sovrano VA, Bisazza A, Vallortigara G (2007) How fish do geometry in large and in small spaces. Anim Cogn 10:47–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Sovrano VA, Albertazzi L, Salva OR (2015) The Ebbinghaus illusion in a fish (Xenotoca eiseni). Anim Cogn 18:533–542Google Scholar
  81. Sumi S (1984) Upside-down presentation of the Johansson moving light-spot pattern. Perception 13:283–286CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Tomonaga M (2001) Visual search for biological motion patterns in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Psychol Int J Psychol Orient 44:46–59Google Scholar
  83. Troje NF (2008) Biological motion perception. In: Albright TD, Masland R (eds) The senses: a comprehensive references, vol 2. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 231–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Troje NF, Aust U (2013) What do you mean with ‘‘direction’’? Local and global cues to biological motion perception in pigeons. Vis Res 79:47–55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Troje NF, Westhoff C (2006) The inversion effect in biological motion perception: evidence for a “life detector”? Curr Biol 16: 821–824CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Turnell ER, Mann KD, Rosenthal GG, Gerlach G (2003) Mate choice in zebrafish (Danio rerio) analyzed with video-stimulus techniques. Biol Bull 205:225–226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Vallortigara G, Regolin L (2006) Gravity bias in the interpretation of biological motion by inexperienced chicks. Curr Biol 16:R279–R280CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Vallortigara G, Regolin L, Marconato F (2005) Visually inexperienced chicks exhibit spontaneous preference for biological motion patterns. PLoS Biol 3:e208CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Vangeneugden J, Vancleef K, Jaeggli T, VanGool L, Vogels R (2010) Discrimination of locomotion direction in impoverished displays of walkers by macaque monkeys. J Vis 10:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wyzisk K, Neumeyer C (2007) Perception of illusionary surfaces and contours in goldfish. Vis Neurosci 24:291–298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Schluessel
    • 1
    Email author
  • N. Kortekamp
    • 1
  • J. A. Ortiz Cortes
    • 1
  • A. Klein
    • 1
  • H. Bleckmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of ZoologyRheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität BonnBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations