Collision-avoidance and landing responses are mediated by separate pathways in the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster
1 UCB/UCSF Joint Bioengineering Graduate Group, University of California,
Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
2 Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA
94720, USA
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: lancet{at}socrates.berkeley.edu)
Accepted 14 June 2002
![]() |
Summary |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key words: looming, optic flow, saccades, landing response, Drosophila melanogaster, collision avoidance
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Different aspects of the image expansion experienced by a fly might underlie the decision about whether to saccade or land. First, the visual processes triggering landing and collision avoidance might have different sensitivities to the speed of image expansion. Second, the decision to saccade or land might depend upon differences in the spatial tuning of the two responses. For example, the focus of image expansion that best activates each of the two behaviors might lie in different regions of visual field. Third, information from other sensory modalities, such as the presence of attractive odors, or the behavioral context, such as the length of the flight period preceding the decision, might bias the probability with which visual expansion elicits the two responses.
The purpose of these experiments is to determine which visual cues
available to the fly increase the probability of landing or collision
avoidance. We examine the influence of an expanding object on the fruit fly
Drosophila melanogaster, using a tethered-flight arena in which a
fly's visual environment can be precisely controlled
(Dickinson and Lighton, 1995;
Lehmann and Dickinson, 1997
).
When flying within tethered-flight simulators, flies (Drosophila)
exhibit rapid changes in wing kinematics and yaw torque that have been
interpreted as analogous to free-flight saccades
(Götz et al., 1979
;
Heide and Götz, 1996
;
Heisenberg and Wolf, 1979
,
1984
). Tethered flies also
demonstrate easily discernable leg extensions that are characteristic of the
landing response (Borst, 1986
).
In these experiments, a change in wing stroke sending an object to the rear
visual field is considered a collision-avoidance response. Leg extension is
interpreted as a landing attempt. By examining the effect of both the retinal
position and rate of expansion of the stimulus on the landing and the
collision-avoidance responses, we show that although the stimulus features
that elicit each of these behaviors are similar, each must be processed by
separate circuits within the fly's brain.
![]() |
Materials and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Data collection
The flies were tethered in a virtual-reality flight arena described in
previous studies (Dickinson and Lighton,
1995; Lehmann and Dickinson,
1997
) (Fig. 1). The
stroke amplitudes of both wings and the wing-beat frequency were tracked
optically and sampled at 1000 Hz using a data acquisition board (National
Instruments) and software written in MATLAB (Mathworks). The difference
between the left and right wing-beat amplitudes, a signal strongly correlated
to the torque generated by the fly about its yaw axis, was fed back to the
arena controller and used to control the angular velocity of a
15°x15° black square. Thus, the fly actively controlled the
azimuthal position of the square. A sinusoidal bias with a frequency of 0.01
Hz and a maximum amplitude of approximately 75° s-1 was then
added to the feedback signal to make it more difficult for the flies to fixate
the square within the frontal region of the visual field. At 5 s intervals,
the fly was presented with an expansion stimulus in which both dimensions of
the square increased at a constant rate. Thus, we did not systematically map
the response to the expansion stimulus in different regions of the visual
field. Instead, the azimuthal position of the square at the onset of expansion
was determined by the fly, which was actively controlling the position of the
square throughout the experiment. However, because the closed-loop design
produces such long flight sequences, the positions of the expanding stimulus
densely covered the entire range along the azimuth.
|
Because each light-emitting diode (LED) of the arena subtended an angle of
5°, expanding the square symmetrically required a series of 10° jumps
at periodic intervals. The rate of expansion was determined by the constant
interval between 10° jumps. Ten intervals were used, of 100, 70, 40, 30,
20, 10, 7, 5, 2 and 1 ms, which led to expansion velocities of 100, 143, 333,
250, 500, 1000, 1430, 2000, 5000 and 10000° s-1, respectively.
The square expanded until it reached a width of 115° and remained at that
width for 800 ms, after which it instantaneously returned to a width of
15° until the next presentation. 7-15 flies were tested at each rate of
expansion, with each stimulus of a given expansion rate presented to an
individual 150-350 times. The stimulus provided only a simplified version of
the optic flow that a freely flying animal would encounter as it flies toward
a stationary object. For example, in our experiments the expansion rate was
linear and constant, whereas in free flight the rate of expansion would
increase as the animal moves closer to the object (see
Gabbiani et al., 1999). Thus,
our stimulus would simulate a deceleration as the fly approached an object.
Technical limitations due to the low resolution of the visual display and the
method of programming the expansion on it prevented a more naturalistic rate
of expansion.
To measure the fly's landing response, a CCD camera was focused on the fly and connected to a closed circuit monitor. A photovoltaic sensor was positioned on the monitor beneath the image of the fly such that extension of the prothoracic legs would generate an increase in luminance, as sensed by the diode. The signal from the photovoltaic chip was amplified by a factor of 20 and low-pass-filtered at 10 Hz using a programmable signal conditioner (CyberAmp 380, Axon Instruments).
Signal conditioning
The raw amplitude and frequency signals from each wing were conditioned for
analysis in the following manner. First, the average wing-beat amplitude
during the 200 ms preceding the presentation of the stimulus was subtracted
from the subsequent response. Each wing-beat amplitude signal was then
smoothed using a low-pass Butterworth filter with a cut-off frequency of 40
Hz. The signals were then downsampled by a factor of 5 to a rate of 200 Hz. To
correct for slight differences in each fly's position over the wing-beat
sensor, the standard deviations of the wing-beat amplitudes from the 200 ms
(an interval representing roughly 40 wing-beat cycles) preceding each stimulus
presentation was calculated over all flies. The standard deviation for each
individual fly was then normalized to this value. To condition the wing-beat
frequency, the mean value of the 200 ms pre-stimulus period was subtracted for
each trace. After that, each value in the trace was divided by the average
pre-stimulus value. Thus, frequency is represented as a percentage of the
baseline level. The wing-beat frequency was then filtered and down-sampled in
a manner identical to the wing-beat signals.
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
During free flight, flies avoid collisions using rapid saccadic turns, the
magnitude of which are independent of the fly's angle of approach
(Tammero and Dickinson, 2002).
To determine whether the magnitude of collision-avoidance responses in
tethered flight varied with the retinal position of the expanding object,
individual wing-beat amplitude responses for each fly were grouped by stimulus
position at the onset of expansion (Fig.
3A). Although the size of the responses varied from presentation
to presentation, the average responses elicited by expansion at a lateral
position were larger than those seen at frontal and caudal positions. This
dependency on the position of the expanding stimulus was consistent across
animals (Fig. 3B). The maximum
change in wing-beat amplitude for each wing, the wing-beat frequency, and the
change in the difference between left and right wing-beat amplitudes following
the expansion stimulus, are plotted against stimulus position in
Fig. 4. The change in wing-beat
amplitude for both the left and right wings varies sinusoidally with stimulus
position, as does the maximum change in their difference
(Fig. 4A,B). The largest change
in wing-beat frequency occurs when in the image expands frontally, with a
gradual decay for more lateral stimulus positions. Like wing-beat frequency,
the probability of the expanding object eliciting a landing response is
greatest for frontal expansion (Fig.
4C,D). The two behaviors, changes in wing motion and the landing
response, are not mutually exclusive. Stimulus expansion over a range of
frontolateral positions can elicit both a landing response and a
collision-avoidance response.
|
|
Because the immediate threat of collision with rapidly approaching objects is greater than that with objects moving more slowly, the fly's response to image expansion might vary with the rate of expansion. To examine how different expansion rates affect the collision-avoidance and landing responses, we measured behavioral changes for squares expanding at varying rates (Fig. 5). Using the fact that the difference between the left and right wing-beat amplitudes varies sinusoidally with stimulus position, we quantified the magnitude of the collision-avoidance response at each expansion rate by calculating the amplitude of a sine wave fitted to the position-response curve for each fly. To quantify the landing response at each expansion rate, we determined the width of the range of stimulus positions in which the probability of landing response was greater than 0.5 for each fly. We normalized the response by dividing the sine amplitudes and the landing response widths measured for each rate of expansion by the maximum mean responses (Fig. 6). Although the sensitivity of the two behaviors to expansion rate is similar, the collision-avoidance response is more broadly tuned. Whereas the two behaviors are maximally activated at an expansion rate of approximately 1000° s-1, the collision-avoidance response displays a greater sensitivity to both faster and slower expansion than the landing response.
|
|
A previous study showed that collision-avoidance saccades occurring during
free flight are of constant magnitude, suggesting a pre-programmed motor
response (Tammero and Dickinson,
2002). In contrast, the amplitude of collision-avoidance responses
during tethered flight varied with both stimulus position and expansion
velocity. To examine the effect of expansion speed on the time course of the
collision-avoidance response, we plotted the difference between the left and
right wing-beat amplitudes for stimuli of varying rates of expansion occurring
at three locations (Fig. 7). For stimuli in each location, both the duration and amplitude of the response
rose with the rate of expansion to a maximum at 1000° s-1 and
fell off for faster rates. The influence of stimulus position on the response
was small when compared to the effects of expansion rate.
|
In addition to influencing response amplitude, variation in stimulus position and rate of expansion might also affect the delay between the start of expansion and the onset of the response. In Fig. 8A,B, the latency from the start of expansion to the onset of both the collision-avoidance and landing responses is plotted. The latency of the collision-avoidance response shows a relatively constant value of approximately 50 ms for stimulus positions between ±50° and ±130°, but increases for more frontal and caudal positions. In contrast, the landing response shows a nearly constant delay of approximately 150 ms at all retinal positions where expansion can trigger a landing response. Thus, whereas the probability of generating a landing response does depend on stimulus position, the latency of the landing response does not. To examine the effect of expansion rate on response delay, the minimum latencies for the collision-avoidance and landing responses were plotted against rate of stimulus expansion (Fig. 8C). Minimum landing response latency falls asymptotically from a value of 300 ms at 100° s-1 to a value of 100 ms at rates of 1000° s-1 and higher. In contrast, the minimum collision-avoidance delay shows a relatively constant value of approximately 50 ms at all but the lowest expansion rates.
|
In the experiments described, each fly controlled the position of the square both before and during stimulus expansion. Therefore, the animal's response to the stimulus altered the expansion to which it was subject. To determine if this closed-loop implementation affected the behavioral responses, we presented expansion stimuli under open-loop conditions in which the fly's behavior had no impact on the position of the stimulus. A comparison of the open- and closed-loop responses for stimuli with identical expansion rates is depicted in Fig. 9. Instead of varying sinusoidally with stimulus position, the relationship between stimulus position and the difference in the left and right wing beat signals is better approximated by a square wave or a sigmoid in the open-loop case (Fig. 9A). In addition, the probability of the landing response is slightly reduced compared with the closed-loop case (Fig. 9B). The latencies of the landing and collision-avoidance responses are similar under closed- and open-loop conditions, although the landing response delay is slightly longer following an open-loop presentation (Fig. 9C,D). The individual wing responses follow similar time courses (Fig. 10), although the responses in both wings are larger in the open-loop case.
|
|
The open- and closed-loop responses to a uniformly expanding object demonstrate that image expansion is a sufficient stimulus for eliciting collision-avoidance and landing responses in tethered flight. The amplitudes and latencies of these responses depend in part on both the position of the stimulus at the onset of expansion and the rate of expansion.
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Are collision-avoidance reactions and torque spikes the
tethered-flight analogs of free-flight saccades?
Many studies have described the rapid changes in wingstroke amplitude
(sometimes referred to as `wing hitches') and the torque spikes generated
during tethered flight in Drosophila
(Götz et al., 1979;
Heide and Götz, 1996
;
Heisenberg and Wolf, 1979
;
Heisenberg and Wolf, 1984
).
Superficially, the tethered-flight collision-avoidance reactions seem similar
to free-flight saccades. Both are visually elicited responses and both direct
the fly away from approaching objects. Closer inspection of the two behaviors
reveals important differences, however. Reconstructions of 3-dimensional
free-flight trajectories taken at 30 frames s-1 suggest that the
saccades generated by Drosophila are ballistic turns, lasting no
greater than 100 ms, during which a fly's heading is altered by 90°
(Tammero and Dickinson, 2002
).
In contrast, the changes in wing stroke evoked by an expanding square in
tethered flight last 600-700 ms (Fig.
3), roughly 12-14 times the length of a free-flight saccade. In
addition, high-speed video recordings of free flying animals at 5000 frames
s-1 indicate that there is little change in the wing-beat amplitude
during the course of the saccades (S. Fry and M. H. Dickinson, unpublished
observations). This subtle alteration in wing kinematics is in contrast to the
large and long-lasting change in left and right stroke amplitude during
collision-avoidance responses seen in tethered flight. The discrepancies in
the wing and body kinematics of tethered-flight collision-avoidance reactions
and free-flight saccades question the assumption that the two are analogous.
One possible explanation for the differences between the tethered-flight
reactions and free-flight saccades is that tethering a fly interrupts
mechanosensory feedback from the halteres (gyroscopic sensors sensitive to
angular velocities about the fly's roll, pitch and yaw axes)
(Dickinson, 1999
;
Nalbach, 1993
;
Nalbach and Hengstenberg,
1994
). Mechanosensory feedback from the halteres, antennae, the
wings and other sensors during the initial stages of a saccade might serve a
critical role in turning off the motor program that alters wing kinematics,
thus reducing the duration and magnitude of the saccade. Restoring some
mechanosensory information by allowing a `loosely tethered' fly to rotate
freely about its yaw axis reduces the duration of a tethered saccade from 700
to 250 ms (Mayer et al.,
1988
).
Visual feedback during collision-avoidance reactions
Previous studies have examined the role that visual feedback plays during
the course of a saccade. Spontaneously reversing the direction of displacement
of a visual object increased the length of torque spikes, whereas doubling or
eliminating the displacement in the expected direction had little effect
(Heisenberg and Wolf, 1979,
1984
). These results suggest
that visual information alters the saccade only if the direction of motion is
opposite to what is expected during the course of the torque spike. In our
experiments, the systematic variation in the amplitude of the
collision-avoidance response with the position of the square and the
difference between open- and closed-loop responses suggest that visual
feedback does play a role in regulating the size of the motor response. There
are two possible explanations for variations in the size of the
collision-avoidance reaction. First, the fly's nervous system sends different
commands to the motor system in response to image expansion occurring at
different positions in the visual field, with the fly following these commands
in a feed-forward maneuver. Alternatively, the nervous system might issue a
single avoidance command and the variation in the response amplitude reflects
the role of sensory feedback. Removing the fly's control over the position of
the square by presenting the stimulus in open loop resulted in larger
responses (Fig. 10),
particularly for positions at the rear of the fly's visual field. It is
unlikely that the identical visual stimuli presented in similar locations
during our experiments would elicit different commands from the fly's nervous
system. Although other sensory modalities, such as olfaction, might be able to
modify the command sent to the motor system, during our experiments each
presentation was made under identical circumstances, thus minimizing any
effects that other sensory modalities could have on the motor command. Because
the fly's collision-avoidance reaction causes the square to move to the rear
of the fly's field of view, the expansion the fly experiences is reduced,
leading to a smaller response. These results are consistent with prior
observations showing that free-flight saccades are slightly larger when the
flies fly within a uniform visual panorama, compared to those generated in a
rich-textured background (Tammero and
Dickinson, 2002
). Thus, our results are best explained by a model
in which the motor response following a saccade command is modulated by
feedback from the visual and mechanosensory systems.
Responses to image expansion in other insects
Although collision-avoidance responses have not been previously reported in
tethered flies, neurons sensitive to image expansion have been described in
flies and other insects. Neurons sensitive to frontally positioned
approximations of image expansion have been described in the cervical
connective of the blowfly Calliphora erythrocephala, and are thought
to play a role in generating the landing response
(Borst, 1991). In the locust
Schistocerca americana, descending contralateral motion detector
cells (DCMDs) may play a roll in collision-avoidance or escape behavior by
firing in response to looming objects
(Gabbiani et al., 1999
;
Gray et al., 2001
;
Judge and Rind, 1997
). In the
lobula plate of the hawk moth Manduca sexta, two cells have been
identified that respond to looming stimuli. Class 1 cells respond to changes
in the size of the looming object, and class 2 cells respond to an expanding
optic flow field (Wicklein and Strausfeld,
2000
). At present, there is no way of knowing whether the
homologues of any of these cells are responsible for the collision-avoidance
behavior, although the properties inferred from the behavior do suggest that
the Drosophila cells represent a new class.
Mechanisms underlying the collision-avoidance and landing
responses
To detect the expanding square and trigger the collision-avoidance and
landing responses, flies might perform several different neural calculations.
One possibility is a `time-to-contact' model, where the fly calculates time
before a collision with the square, and either saccades or extends its legs
before the anticipated contact. A second possibility is a `temporal contrast'
model, in which the fly responds to darkening in its field of view.
Alternatively, a fly may generate a response when the image across its retina
subtends a certain width or area, which we will refer to as a stimulus size
trigger. Finally, the fly might integrate image motion over space and time,
with saccade initiation occurring when the integral exceeds a threshold,
referred to as the `spatio-temporal integration model'
(Borst, 1990;
Borst and Bahde, 1988
).
The time-to-contact model has been proposed as the trigger for deceleration
before landing in freely flying Drosophila
(Wagner, 1982). However, such
a calculation cannot be responsible for triggering the collision-avoidance
response in our experiments, as the latency of the response is uniform for
varying rates of expansion, which approximate different approach speeds and
thus different times-to-contact (Fig.
8). Although landing-response latency does vary with expansion
rate (Fig. 8), in other species
of flies this latency also depends upon image contrast and size, factors that
are inconsistent with the time-to-contact model
(Borst and Bahde, 1986
;
Eckert and Hamdorf, 1980
).
Decreases in temporal contrast (i.e. darkening), coupled with object motion,
evoke escape responses in stationary Drosophila
(Holmqvist and Srinivasan,
1991
; Trimarchi and
Schneiderman, 1995
). In our experiments, however, large changes in
temporal contrast, generated by instantaneous increases in the size of the
square, elicited neither collision-avoidance nor landing responses
(Fig. 5). Cells that respond
when an expanding object reaches a certain size have been described in locusts
(Gabbiani et al., 1999
,
2001
) and hawk moths
(Wicklein and Strausfeld,
2000
). Such a model has also been suggested for
Drosophila (Wittekind,
1988
), yet other investigators have demonstrated that larger flies
will land in response to sinusoidal gratings whose total size remains constant
(Borst and Bahde, 1986
;
Wehrhahn et al., 1981
). In our
experiments, response latency did not vary with expansion rate, as would be
expected if the response were triggered by an absolute stimulus size. Thus,
the stimulus-size model cannot account for our results. A model in which the
spatially and temporally integrated output of local motion detectors exceed a
threshold to trigger a response has previously been proposed to account for
landing behavior in flies (Borst,
1990
), and remains the most parsimonious explanation for the
behavioral responses described here.
Optic flow model for saccade and landing response initiation
Many studies have emphasized the important role that optic flow plays in
the control of insect flight (Collett et
al., 1993; Krapp et al.,
1998
; Srinivasan,
1993
). Flies are thought to estimate optic flow by means of a
retinotopic array of motion detectors, each of which provides information on
the amplitude and direction of motion occurring over a small portion of a
fly's visual field. By spatially integrating their inputs according to
appropriate `matched filters', a fly receives feedback about its translational
and rotational movement by spatially integrating responses from individual
local motion detectors (Franz and Krapp,
2000
; Krapp et al.,
1998
). A model in which estimation of optic flow information is
used to initiate collision-avoidance and landing responses is shown in
Fig. 11. Output from local
motion detectors is appropriately pooled, to measure image expansion occurring
over different regions of the fly's visual world. Independent initiation of
the two behaviors requires that image expansion be calculated over at least
three different regions, the lateral left, lateral right, and frontal fields
of view. Because the collision-avoidance reactions and landing responses are
discrete events, both are likely to be triggered when some neural signal
exceeds a threshold. Temporal integration of the expansion signal would allow
the input signal to accumulate even when the response of a hypothetical
expansion cell has reached a steady-state level. This allows the signal to
exceed this threshold, while at the same time beneficially conditioning the
signal, making the input to the threshold detector less sensitive to high
frequency noise. This temporal integration must be `leaky', as the weak motion
stimuli do not elicit responses (Borst,
1990
).
|
The longer latencies associated with the landing response when compared to
collision avoidance can be explained either by differences in visual
processing or in the speed with which the motor system responds upon receiving
a descending command from the brain. It is unlikely that the longer latency of
the landing responses is due to slower activation of the motor system, as
studies on the flight initiation in Drosophila demonstrate that the
tibial levator muscle is activated as rapidly as 1-2 ms after activation of
the giant fiber (Trimarchi and
Schneiderman, 1993). During visually elicited flight initiation,
leg extension occurs approximately 20 ms after the presentation of the
stimulus (Trimarchi and Schneiderman,
1995
). Additionally, the expansion-sensitive neurons in the
cervical connective of the blowfly Calliphora erythrocephala respond
to bilateral image expansion with a latency between 100 and 200 ms
(Borst, 1991
), a value close to
the latency of the landing response in Drosophila and Musca
(Borst, 1986
). Thus, it is
likely that the longer latency in the initiation of the landing response
reflects a difference in the time required for the spatial and temporal
integration of the visual signal, suggesting that separate circuits mediate
detection of the visual stimuli that trigger the collision-avoidance and
landing responses. The longer latency of the landing response as compared to
the collision-avoidance reaction may indicate either that a higher threshold
level must be surpassed to trigger a response, or an increased amount of
leakiness in the integrator preceding the threshold detectors in the landing
system. Leakiness in the integrator can also explain the larger sensitivity of
the landing response latencies to expansion rate. Because it would be
behaviorally disastrous if a saccade in one direction was followed immediately
by a saccade in the opposite direction, the output of the lateral expansion
detectors inhibits the opposite expansion pathway in our proposed model. Where
in the collision-avoidance pathway this inhibition is manifested could not be
determined by these experiments.
In our experiments, we varied only the azimuthal position of the expanding
square. The center of the square was fixed along the equator of the fly's
visual field. If the elevation of the square changed from this position, it is
unlikely that the output of the model would be changed, particularly when the
horizontal edges of the expanding object were on opposite sides of the equator
of the fly's field of view. Our experiments did not examine the relative
importance of the vertical and horizontal components of the expansion.
However, in a study of the landing response in the housefly Musca
domestica, the directional sensitivity of the landing response was
dependent on the position of the stimulus in the fly's visual field
(Wehrhahn et al., 1981). In
the frontal visual field above the equator, motion in the upward direction
initiated the landing response most strongly, whereas in the lateral visual
field at the equator, landing was most strongly initiated by front-to-back
horizontal motion. Our model, based upon the spatio-temporal integration of
optic flow, would predict similar results.
Furthermore, our model does not consider changes in response that might
occur with multiple presentations of a stimulus. The landing response in
Drosophila does attenuate with multiple presentations
(Fischbach, 1981). We saw no
attenuation in the collision-avoidance response during the course of our
experiments. One possibility is that the azimuthal position of the square
varied for each trial, preventing multiple repeated presentations in the same
location. Even during the open-loop presentations, the azimuthal position of
the square varied randomly. However, during our experiments the square
expanded at approximately 5 s intervals, whereas in free flight visually
induced collision-avoidance saccades occur at intervals of 0.75-1.5 s
(Tammero and Dickinson, 2002
)
over flight trajectories lasting several minutes. Although decreasing the time
between expansions while holding the position of the square constant might
reveal some habituation, our experiments as presented did not result in
noticeable habituation, and thus this feature is not included in the
model.
Optic-flow model and free-flight behavior
The visual information that the fly receives from the expanding square in
our experiments differs from what it would receive if it were freely flying
towards an object at a constant velocity. During our experiments, the square
expanded at a constant rate, which during free flight would result from the
fly decelerating as it approached the object. Trajectories from free-flight
experiments have demonstrated that flies do decelerate as they approach the
walls of the arena (L. Tammero and M. Dickinson, unpublished data). However,
the stimulus used in our tethered experiments is only an approximation of the
image expansion experienced during free-flight object approach. Despite this,
the stimuli still reliably initiated both collision-avoidance and landing
responses. The theoretical model discussed previously would respond in a
similar fashion to objects expanding at a constant rate as well as to objects
whose rate of expansion increased exponentially.
During free flight, a fruit fly explores its environment using a series of
straight line segments interspersed with saccades
(Tammero and Dickinson, 2002).
Given that similar stimuli can evoke either a collision-avoidance response or
a landing response, how is it that these behaviors do not interfere with one
another in free flight? Reconstructing the fly's estimation of optic flow
during free flight suggested that image expansion in the frontolateral field
of view precedes each saccade. Although in tethered flight, expansion in
frontolateral portions of the fly's field of view could elicit either a
saccade or a landing response, the latency before the onset of the saccade is
shorter than the landing response latency. Thus, if a freely flying
Drosophila were to experience image expansion capable of eliciting
both a saccade and a landing response, the saccade is likely to occur first,
sending the expanding image to the rear of the fly's field of view. During the
period of straight flight following the saccade, our model predicts that the
expansion experienced by the fly builds until the next saccade is triggered. A
landing that terminates the flight trajectory could be elicited by image
expansion occurring in the central portion of the fly's field of view, or by
inhibition of the fly's saccade pathways.
In free flight, the focus of expansion at which image velocity is zero should reside in the fly's frontal visual field, assuming the animal translates while keeping its body axis tangent to its flight path and does not rotate. During the tethered-flight experiments, however, the collision-avoidance responses were initiated by a square expanding in more lateral positions of the fly's visual field. For the image expansion reflexes identified in these experiments to initiate saccades during free flight, the focus of expansion must be displaced to a more lateral position in the visual field. This lateral displacement may result from either rotation about the fly's yaw axis or side-slip. Alternatively, the collision-avoidance reflexes elicited by lateral expansion might represent circuitry that functions to detect moving objects such as predators, whereas free-flight saccades elicited by the fly's approach to a static background might be initiated by separate reflexes not yet identified. High-resolution free-flight tracking, in which the body orientation as well as the position of the fly is visualized, will be necessary to differentiate between these two alternatives.
Image expansion plays a central role in the initiation of landing responses and collision-avoidance reactions and, by extension, saccades. Variations in both responses with the retinal location of image expansion, and differences in the latencies associated with visual processing, explain how the landing and collision-avoidance reactions interact during free flight. Because saccades seem to be the prevalent means by which flies alter flight heading, the initiation of these saccades plays a large role in controlling their flight behavior. Variations in the constituent elements of our conceptual model (such as the threshold levels or leakiness of the temporal integrator) would necessarily be reflected by the animal's behavioral output. Thus, the computations using image expansion to land on and avoid approaching obstacles is a clear example of how patterns of behavior might emerge from interactions between the animal and its environment.
![]() |
Acknowledgments |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Borst, A. (1986). Time course of the houseflies' landing response. Biol Cybern. 54,379 -383.
Borst, A. (1990). How do flies land? From behavior to neuronal circuits. BioScience 40,292 -299.
Borst, A. (1991). Fly visual interneurons responsive to image expansion. Zool. Jb. Physiol. 95,305 -313.
Borst, A. and Bahde, S. (1986). What kind of movement detector is triggering the landing response of the housefly? Biol. Cybern. 55,59 -69.
Borst, A. and Bahde, S. (1988). Spatiotemporal integration of motion a simple strategy of safe landing in flies. Naturwissenschaften 75,265 -267.
Collett, T. S. and Land, M. F. (1975). Visual control of flight behavior in hoverfly, Syritta pipiens. J. Comp. Physiol. 99,1 -66.
Collett, T. S., Nalbach, H. O. and Wagner, H. (1993). Visual stabilization in arthropods. Rev. Oculomot. Res. 5,239 -263.[Medline]
Dickinson, M. H. (1999). Haltere-mediated equilibrium reflexes of the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster.Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 354,903 -916.[Medline]
Dickinson, M. H. and Lighton, J. R. (1995). Muscle efficiency and elastic storage in the flight motor of Drosophila.Science 128,82 -89.
Eckert, H. and Hamdorf, K. (1980). Excitatory and inhibitory response components in the landing response of the blowfly, Calliphora erythrocephala. J. Comp. Physiol. A 138,253 -264.
Fischbach, K. F. (1981). Habituation and sensitization of the landing response of Drosophila melanogaster.Naturwissenschaften 68,322 .
Franz, M. O. and Krapp, H. G. (2000). Wide-field, motion-sensitive neurons and matched filters for optic flow fields. Biol. Cybern. 83,185 -197.[Medline]
Gabbiani, F., Krapp, H. G. and Laurent, G.
(1999). Computation of object approach object by a wide-field,
motion-sensitive neuron. J. Neurosci.
19,1122
-1141.
Gabbiani, F., Mo, C. and Laurent, G. (2001).
Invariance of angular threshold computation in a wide-field looming-sensitive
neuron. J. Neurosci. 21,314
-329.
Goodman, L. J. (1960). The landing responses of insects. I. The landing response of the fly, Lucilia sericata, and other Calliphorinae. J. Exp. Biol. 37,854 -878.
Götz, K. G., Hengstenberg, B. and Biesinger, R. (1979). Optomotor control of wing beat and body posture. Biol. Cybern. 35,101 -112.
Gray, J. R., Lee, J. K. and Robertson, R. M. (2001). Activity of descending contralateral movement detector neurons and collision avoidance behaviour in response to head-on visual stimuli in locusts. J. Comp. Physiol. A 187,115 -129.
Heide, G. (1983). Neural mechanisms of flight control in Diptera. In Insect Flight II, Biona Report 2 (ed. W. Nachtigall), pp. 35-52. Stuttgart: G. Fischer.
Heide, G. and Götz, K. G. (1996).
Optomotor control of course and altitude in Drosophila melanogaster
is correlated with distinct activities of at least three pairs of flight
steering muscles. J. Exp. Biol.
199,1711
-1726.
Heisenberg, M. and Wolf, R. (1979). On the fine structure of yaw torque in visual flight orientation of Drosophila melanogaster. J. Comp. Physiol. A 130,113 -130.
Heisenberg, M. and Wolf, R. (1984).Vision in Drosophila . Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Holmqvist, M. H. and Srinivasan, M. V. (1991). A visually evoked escape response of the housefly. J. Comp. Physiol. A 169,451 -459.[Medline]
Judge, S. J. and Rind, F. C. (1997). The locust
DCMD, a movement-detecting neurone tightly tuned to collison trajectories.
J. Exp. Biol. 200,2209
-2216.
Krapp, H. G., Hengstenberg, B. and Hengstenberg, R.
(1998). Dendritic structure and receptive-field organization of
optic flow processing interneurons in the fly. J.
Neurophysiol. 79,1902
-1917.
Lehmann, F.-O. and Dickinson, M. H. (1997). The
changes in power requirements and muscle efficiency during elevated force
production in the fruit fly Drosophila. J. Exp. Biol.
200,1133
-1143.
Mayer, M., Vogtmann, K., Bausenwein, B., Wolf, R. and Heisenberg, M. (1988). Flight control during `free yaw turns' in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Comp. Physiol. A 163,389 -399.
Nalbach, G. (1993). The halteres of the blowfly Calliphora 1. Kinematics and dynamics. J. Comp. Physiol. A 173,293 -300.
Nalbach, G. and Hengstenberg, R. (1994). The halteres of the blowfly Caliphora 2. Three-dimensional organization of compensatory reactions to real and simulated rotations. J. Comp. Physiol. A 175,695 -708.
Srinivasan, M. V. (1993). How insects infer range from visual motion. Rev. Oculomot. Res 5, 139-156.[Medline]
Tammero, L. F. and Dickinson, M. H. (2002). The
influence of visual landscape on the free flight behavior of the fruit fly
Drosophila melanogaster. J. Exp. Biol.
205,327
-343.
Trimarchi, J. R. and Schneiderman, A. M.
(1993). Giant fiber activation of an intrinsic muscle in the
mesothoracic leg of Drosophila melanogaster. J. Exp.
Biol. 177,149
-167.
Trimarchi, J. R. and Schneiderman, A. M. (1995). Initiation of flight in the unrestrained fly, Drosophila melanogaster. J. Zool., Lond. 235,211 -222.
Wagner, H. (1982). Flow-field variables trigger landing in flies. Nature 297,147 -148.
Wehrhahn, C., Hausen, K. and Zanker, J. (1981). Is the landing response of the housefly (Musca) driven by motion of a flow field? Biol. Cybern. 41, 91-99.
Wicklein, M. and Strausfeld, N. J. (2000). Organization and significance of neurons that detect change of visual depth in the hawk moth Manduca sexta. J. Comp. Neurol. 424,356 -376.[Medline]
Wittekind, W. C. (1988). The landing response of tethered flying Drosophila is induced at a critical object angle. J. Exp. Biol. 135,491 -493.
Related articles in JEB: