Cuttlefish rely on both polarized light and landmarks for orientation
Cuttlefish are sensitive to linear polarization of light, a sensitivity that they use in predation and possibly in intraspecific communication. It has also been shown that cuttlefish are able to solve a maze using visual landmarks. In this study, cuttlefish were trained to solve a Y-maze with the e-vector of a polarized light and landmarks as redundant spatial information. The results showed that cuttlefish can use the e-vector orientation and landmarks in parallel to orient and that they are able to use either type of cue when the other one is missing. When they faced conflicting spatial information in the experimental apparatus, the majority of cuttlefish followed the e-vector rather than landmarks. Differences in response latencies in the different conditions of testing (training with both types of cue, tests with single cue or with conflicting information) were observed and discussed in terms of decision making. The ability to use near field and far field information may enable animals to interpret the partially occluded underwater light field.
KeywordsNavigation Polarized light Landmarks Cephalopods
We thank the staff of the CREC for their technical assistance. This research was supported by a grant from the Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche to L.C.
- Gallistel CR (1990) The organization of learning. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Healy S (1998) Spatial representation in animals. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Horvath G, Varju D (2004) Polarized light in animal vision: polarization patterns in nature. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- Sabbah S, Lerner A, Erlick C, Shashar N (2005) Under water polarization vision—a physical examination. In: Pandalai SG (ed) Recent research developments in experimental and theoretical biology. TRN Press, Kerala, pp 123–176Google Scholar
- Shettleworth SJ (2010) Getting around: spatial cognition. In: Shettleworth SJ (ed) Cognition, evolution, and behavior, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 261–312Google Scholar