de.mpg.escidoc.pubman.appbase.FacesBean
English
 
Help Guide Disclaimer Contact us Login
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

Recurrent Inversion of Visual Orientation in the Walking Fly, Drosophila melanogaster

MPS-Authors
http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons83839

Bülthoff,  HH
Department Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons84662

Götz,  KG
Neurophysiologie des Insektenverhaltens, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons84814

Herre,  M
Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

Locator
There are no locators available
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts available
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Bülthoff, H., Götz, K., & Herre, M. (1982). Recurrent Inversion of Visual Orientation in the Walking Fly, Drosophila melanogaster. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 148(4), 471-481. doi:10.1007/BF00619785.


Cite as: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0013-F097-3
Abstract
Movement-induced visual orientation in flies depends largely upon predictable responses which establish simple ldquooptomotor balancerdquo or complex ldquopseudo searchrdquo in the appropriate visual environment. Less conspicuous course diverting spontaneous actions of the flies become important in pattern-induced visual orientation. The apparently stochastic spontaneous actions of the houseflyMusca domestica still allow powerful probabilistic predictions of orientation during stationary flight (Reichardt and Poggio 1981). The predominance of non-stochastic spontaneous actions such as ldquobody saccadesrdquo, focussing and shift of ldquovisual attentionrdquo, plasticity of response components etc. in the fruitflyDrosophila melanogaster (Heisenberg and Wolf 1979–1980) accounts for complementary behavioural options which reduce the relevance of probabilistic predictions of orientation in this fly. The conjecture of ldquocomplementary optionsrdquo is based on a striking antagonism between orientation towards a visual object (fixation), and orientation in the opposite direction (anti-fixation), in the walking fly. Forced choice in a multiple-Y-maze quite definitely elicits fixation in the wild type, and antifixation in the ldquooptomotor blindrdquo mutantomb H31 (Fig. 3). However, these effects cannot be attributed to a continuous predominance of attraction in the wild type and repellence in the mutant. This is shown under comparable conditions of free choice in an arena: The flies of either strain alternate between fixation and anti-fixation of an inaccessible visual object (Fig. 4a), and keep running to and fro between two of these objects in ldquoBuridan's paradigmrdquo (Fig. 4b, c), even if the objects are not alike (Fig. 4d). The sequence of approach, retreat and transition may be repeated a few thousand times to the point of exhaustion (Fig. 5). The process resembles the recurrent alternation of ambiguous figures such as the Necker cube in human perception. The recurrent transition between competitive objects counteracts the accumulation of spontaneous preferences, and is likely to explain the apparent lack of pattern-discrimination under operant and non-operant conditions of continued free choice inDrosophila. The conspicuous dichotomy of fixation and anti-fixation in the same environment is, as yet, incompatible with the phenomenological theory of visually controlled orientation in larger flies.