Polarization vision a uniform sensory capacity?
Zoologisches Institut der Universität Zürich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zürich, Switzerland
*e-mail: rwehner{at}zool.unizh.ch
Accepted April 19, 2001
![]() |
Summary |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key words: polarized light, underwater vision, e-vector compass, contrast enhancement, optical signalling, Cataglyphis spp.
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
|
What is the behavioural task that the animal must accomplish by using polarized-light information? It is manifold. A large number of behavioural studies have been performed by various authors under various conditions and experimental paradigms in various groups of animals. These studies have led to a variety of results and, in turn, to considerable debate about how to define polarization vision. These definitions range widely from any general ability to respond to polarized light to what could be called the most sophisticated e-vector-detecting system, namely one that is able to determine the angle of polarization (the e-vector orientation, ) independently of variations in intensity (I), degree of polarization (d) and spectral content (
). The conditions such a true polarization-vision system (sensu Nilsson and Warrant, 1999) must meet were outlined nearly a quarter of a century ago (Bernard and Wehner, 1977), but whether the polarization-sensitive systems of any animal species obey these theoretical requirements has not been shown yet. Hence, let us move from definitions to observations, and consider three stimulus situations.
![]() |
Stimulus situation I: water/air interface |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Note, however, that polarized reflections can also give rise to incoherent and erratic polarization cues, which can invade, so to speak, any colour vision system if the latter receives its input from photoreceptors that as in arthropods are inherently sensitive to polarized light. This problem is avoided by destroying the polarization sensitivity of photoreceptors in those parts of the eye that are involved in colour vision (Wehner and Bernard, 1993). Butterflies, however, at least the Australian orchid butterflies of the species Papilio aegeus, do not seem to disentangle the ambiguity between colour and polarization (Kelber, 1999; Kelber et al., 2001). Rather than being a failure, the use of polarization-induced false colours might help the butterflies to detect appropriate oviposition sites, horizontally oriented green leaves.
It appears that, whenever the polarized reflections create predictable arrays of stimuli indicative of biologically meaningful parts of the environment, some species of animal have evolved sensory filters that are matched to perceive them. The backswimmer Notonecta glauca is a prime example. It possesses a set of specialized photoreceptors that are most sensitive to horizontally polarized light. Let us term the part of the eye that contains these specialized photoreceptors the POL area of the eye. Each visual unit (ommatidium) of this POL area contains two sets of photoreceptors that have their e-vector tuning axes oriented in mutually perpendicular ways: one axis horizontal, the other vertical (Schwind, 1983). As we shall see below, such an orthogonal arrangement of polarization analyzers enhances polarization contrast if appropriately combined and renders the resulting signal invariant against fluctuations in radiant intensity. Thus, the structural peculiarities of the waterbugs POL channel are adapted to the stimulus characteristics prevailing at the surface of its aquatic world.
![]() |
Stimulus situation II: water |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
However, there is more to polarization vision under water than just using it for swimming away from the shore. Note that, in underwater vision, the scattering of light largely degrades contrast by interposing a veil of light between the observer and any object observed (Lythgoe and Hemmings, 1967; Lythgoe, 1971; Nilsson, 1996). As a result of the prevailing horizontal polarization, a vertical analyzer would reduce the amount of scattered light perceived and, hence, increase contrast. This is analogous to the effect of polaroid sunglasses, but for scattered rather than reflected light (or to the use of yellow glasses when skiing in fog). More particularly, there is much more scatter in the background spacelight than between the object and the observer, so polarization sensitivity helps to enhance the contrast between any object and its surroundings. In principle, a single class of polarization-sensitive photoreceptor might provide the animal with such a contrast-enhancing, haze-reducing device, but again a set of orthogonally arranged analyzers is the superior solution if the entire spectrum of intensity differences between light and dark objects and dark and light backgrounds is considered. The widespread occurrence of such mutually perpendicular analyzers in the eyes of cephalopods (first described by Moody and Parriss, 1961) and crustaceans (first described by Eguchi, 1965) supports this point.
Even though cutting through the veiling brightness of underwater spacelight might be the most general function of polarization vision in aquatic animals, individual targets can also be detected by their intrinsic polarization properties. Nadav Shashar and colleagues have shown that polarization sensitivity can help to detect transparent prey, i.e. to break camouflages. This is because various tissues of planktonic animals exhibit strong birefringent retardances of up to one-quarter of the wavelength. Hence, the mostly transparent but polarization-active pelagic organisms become conspicuous when viewed by a polarization-sensitive system. Furthermore, some animals, such as cuttlefish (Shashar et al., 1996) and stomatopod crustaceans (Marshall et al., 1999), possess polarized body patterns which, like colour signals, might be used in interspecific communication.
It is in the latter group of animals, especially in the visually advanced mantis shrimps, that true polarization vision as defined above has been proposed on the basis of behavioural experiments. On the sensory side, there seems to be a special POL area (mid-band ommatidial rows 5 and 6 of the stomatopods compound eyes) that is specifically designed for the analysis of polarized light (Marshall, 1988; Marshall et al., 1991). This streak-like area fulfils the theoretical requirements for two distinct two-dimensional polarization-vision systems, one receiving its input from short-wavelength (ultraviolet) receptors, the other from long-wavelength (blue/green) receptors. In addition, stomatopod eyes show frequent scanning movements (Land et al., 1990), so that time-modulated polarization signals might also be used. Strong indications that gonodactyloid stomatopods, which are equipped with large-sized mid-band ommatidia, might actually exhibit true polarization vision have been deduced from neatly designed behavioural experiments (Marshall et al., 1999). In these experiments, the animals were successfully trained to choose objects characterized by a particular angle of polarization, but they failed to discriminate between objects that differed only in brightness cues. Even though the effects of intensity (I) and e-vector orientation () were tested in separate experimental series, rather than by varying I and
independently in the same stimulus, the results are highly suggestive of the shrimps ability to discriminate two light stimuli on the basis of polarization alone.
However, before fully acknowledging such a true polarization-vision system, one would like to demonstrate the intensity-invariance of its -detecting capabilities. For example, one would like to use e-vector stimuli that can be varied in radiant intensity, then select pairs of such stimuli (
1 and
2) that are equally bright to the animal (for an experimental paradigm, see Fig.3) and, finally, test whether these equally bright e-vector stimuli
1 and
2 can be discriminated. Furthermore, in a similar
1 versus
2 paradigm, one could test for intensity-invariance by changing the intensity of, say, the training stimulus (e.g.
1) and observe whether or not the animals responses can be described as a trade-off between
and I. I agree that such parametric test paradigms might seem a bit academic, but it is only by entertaining such a systematic approach that we can learn something about the potentials and constraints of an animals polarization-vision system, e.g. about the degree of I invariance,
thresholds and those values of
to which the system is most sensitive. This is what we are looking for. The range between true and what then might be dubbed spurious polarization-vision systems is certainly wide.
|
![]() |
Stimulus situation III: air |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
This striking behaviour led to the early assumption that the insect comes programmed with detailed map-like knowledge of all possible e-vector patterns in the sky or that it is endowed with some abstract geometrical means of deducing, say, the position of the solar meridian from individual pixels of the skylight patterns (von Frisch, 1965; Kirschfeld et al., 1975; Brines and Gould, 1982). However, this does not seem to be the case. Present investigations in which bees and ants were presented with individual e-vectors (Rossel and Wehner, 1984; Wehner and Rossel, 1985; Fent, 1986; for a review, see Wehner, 1994) have shown that, under certain experimental conditions, systematic navigational errors occur. It is most likely that the insect acquires and uses global rather than local skylight information. For example, if Cataglyphis ants are trained to walk in a particular direction while they are presented with a partial e-vector pattern (a strip-like aerial window) and later tested under the full skylight pattern, they make systematic mistakes (Fig.4). The sign and size of these error angles depend on the particular parts of the sky that the animal has seen during training. Such systematic errors should not occur if the animal were endowed with precise knowledge of the celestial e-vector patterns or if it were capable of performing spherical geometrical constructions of one kind or another. However, the experimental errors immediately vanish when the insect is exposed to the same patch of sky during both the training and the testing phase (see green data point in the upper graph of Fig.4).
|
Taken together, the behavioural and neurophysiological data lead to the following hypothesis: some ambiguities notwithstanding (for their possible solution, see Wehner, 1997), each point of the compass is characterized by a particular response ratio of three POL neurons. We do not know yet how these response ratios are neurally encoded, but there must be some kind of neural network translating the broad-band compass responses of the POL neurons into narrowly tuned responses of particular compass neurons. A particular compass neuron should be activated whenever the animal is heading in a particular compass direction (see also Hartmann and Wehner, 1995). Whatever this translation system actually might be (one can imagine several possibilities), the behavioural data (e.g. Fig.4) are compatible with the hypothesis that the POL/compass neuron system is recalibrated anew every time the animal sets out for a foraging journey. The calibration could occur during rotatory (yaw) body movements performed fully or partially by the ants when leaving their nest (Wehner et al., 1992).
Computer simulations and robotics implementations (Lambrinos et al., 1997) have shown that a system consisting of a few (three) large-field polarization analyzers (polarization-opponent units, POL-OP units, analogous to the POL neurons of the insects visual system) is sufficient to yield compass responses that are as precise as those exhibited by the foraging ants. Each time the robot is told, by a wireless command, to choose a particular compass course, e.g. 30° to the left of the solar meridian, it first performs a 360° turn to generate a look-up table, correlating the current outputs of the POL-OP units with the compass scale, and then moves in the desired direction.
In summary, Fig.5 provides a hypothetical flow-chart of the insects e-vector compass. In Fig.5C, the various response ratios of the three broad-band POL neurons are encoded by false colours. This illustrative false-colour representation is chosen on purpose because the algorithmic task of encoding polarization information from the response ratios of three POL neurons is analogous to the task of encoding hues of colour from the response ratios of three broad-band colour receptors. Similarly, particular response ratios of the three POL neurons could define particular values of . Note, however, that in the insects skylight compass, it is not the
-scale per se, but the e-vector compass scale, to which the response ratios of the POL neurons are related. For technical reasons, in electrophysiological studies, the POL neurons have been presented only with individual e-vectors in particular points of their visual fields, but in real life they are stimulated by wide-field e-vector patterns, and it is the integrated response to these patterns that the POL neurons transmit.
|
The accuracy of the insects skylight compass depends on how distinctly the response ratios of the POL neurons vary as the animal rotates about its vertical body axis, i.e. faces different points of the compass. Hence, selection should have favoured an array of e-vector detectors that maximizes the differences in the response ratios of the POL neurons for different points of the compass. Attempts to design such an optimal detector array, at least for certain skylight conditions, are under way (G. D. Bernard and R. Wehner, in preparation) (for a preliminary result see Wehner, 1996).
Recently, a polarization-vision system that could be dubbed a one- (rather than three-) POL-unit device has been described in a spider, the gnaphosid Drassodes cupreus (Dacke et al., 1999). Here, the POL unit consists of a pair of upward-pointing (postero-median) eyes, which are lensless and hence do not form images within their large (125° wide) visual fields. The e-vector tuning axes of the polarization-sensitive photoreceptors coincide within each eye, but differ by 90° between the left and the right eye. It has not yet been shown whether antagonistic interactions occur between the eyes, but this is a likely hypothesis. Of course, if precise and unambiguous compass orientation is at stake, a one-POL-unit system would be inferior to a three-POL-unit system, but the potentials and constraints of such a system have not yet been tested in behavioural experiments.
![]() |
Concluding remarks |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Of course, the latter assumption is provocative. It is especially important to emphasize that true polarization vision, in which the orientation of individual e-vectors can be detected unambiguously (independently of, say, d and ; see above) in any point of the animals environment, might not be what polarization-vision systems are designed for. One of the most elaborate and best-studied polarization-vision systems, the insects skylight compass, is a case in point. The information this system provides is not about individual e-vectors; it is about compass courses, which are derived from the (most probably) global processing of e-vector gradients in the sky. If, within this system, calibration works as described above, one could envisage a network in which information about
and information about d are not processed independently. Another example is provided by the oviposition behaviour of certain butterflies. In this behavioural context, polarization and colour are not processed separately (Kelber, 1999; Kelber et al., 2001). In Papilio aegeus, for instance, the most attractive oviposition sites are horizontally oriented shiny green leaves. Such leaves preferentially stimulate polarization-sensitive green receptors equipped with horizontal e-vector tuning axes.
In conclusion, experimental paradigms such as that outlined in Fig.3, as attractive and consistent as they certainly are, might often prevent us from appreciating the real task that a given polarization-vision system must accomplish. If we consider such a paradigm the experimentum crucis for polarization vision, time and again we might fall victim to an ill-posed question and might miss most of the exciting ways in which animals make use of the various forms of polarized light prevailing in their visual worlds.
![]() |
Acknowledgments |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Bernard, G. D. and Wehner, R. (1977). Functional similarities between polarization vision and color vision. Vision Res. 17, 10191028.[Medline]
Brines, M. L. and Gould, J. L. (1982). Skylight polarization patterns and animal orientation. J. Exp. Biol. 96, 6991.
Dacke, M., Nilsson, D.-E., Warrant, E. J., Blest, A. D., Land, M. F. and OCarroll, D. C. (1999). Built-in polarizers form part of a compass organ in spiders. Nature 401, 470473.
Eguchi, E. (1965). Rhabdom structure and receptor potentials in single crayfish retinular cells. J. Cell. Comp. Physiol. 66, 411429.
Fent, K. (1986). Polarized skylight orientation in the desert ant Cataglyphis. J. Comp. Physiol. A 158, 145150.
Hartmann, G. and Wehner, R. (1995). The ants path integration system: a neural architecture. Biol. Cybern. 73, 483497.
Hawryshyn, C. W. (1992). Polarisation vision in fish. Am. Sci. 80, 164175.
Helbig, A. J. (1990). Depolarization of natural skylight disrupts orientation of an avian nocturnal migrant. Experientia 46, 755758.
Horvath, G. and Wehner, R. (1999). Skylight polarization as perceived by desert ants and measured by videopolarimetry. J. Comp. Physiol. A 184, 17, 347349.
Kelber, A. (1999). Why false colours are seen by butterflies. Nature 402, 251.[Medline]
Kelber, A., Thunell, C, and Arikawa, K. (2001). Polarisation-dependent colour vision in Papilio butterflies. J. Exp. Biol. 204, 24692480.
Kirschfeld, K., Lindauer, M. and Martin, H. (1975). Problems of menotactic orientation according to the polarized light of the sky. Z. Naturforsch. 30c, 8890.
Kriska, G., Horvath, G. and Andrikovics, S. (1998). Why do mayflies lay their eggs en masse on dry asphalt roads? Water-imitating polarized light reflected from asphalt attracts Ephemeroptera. J. Exp. Biol. 201, 22732286.
Labhart, T. (1999). How polarization-sensitive interneurones of crickets see the polarization pattern of the sky: a field study with an opto-electronic model neurone. J. Exp. Biol. 202, 757770.
Labhart, T. and Meyer, E. P. (1999). Detectors for polarized skylight in insects: A survey of ommatidial specializations in the dorsal rim area of the compound eye. Microscop. Res. Techn. 47, 368379.
Labhart, T. and Petzold, J. (1993). Processing of polarized light information in the visual system of crickets. In Arthropod Sensory Systems (ed. K. Wiese), pp. 158169. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag.
Labhart, T., Petzold, J. and Helbig, J. (2001). Spatial integration in polarization-sensitive interneurones of crickets: a survey of evidence, mechanisms and benefits. J. Exp. Biol. 204, 24232430.
Lambrinos, D., Kobayashi, H., Pfeifer, R., Maris, M., Labhart, T. and Wehner, R. (1997). An autonomous agent navigating with a polarized light compass. Adapt. Behav. 6, 131161.
Land, M. F., Marshall, J. N., Brownless, D. and Cronin, T. W. (1990). The eye-movements of the mantis shrimp Odontodactylus scyllarus (Crustacea: Stomatopoda). J. Comp. Physiol. A 167, 155166.
Lythgoe, J. N. (1971). Vision. In Underwater Science (ed. J. D. Woods and J. N. Lythgoe), pp. 103139. London: Oxford University Press.
Lythgoe, J. N. and Hemmings, C. C. (1967). Polarized light and underwater vision. Nature 213, 893894.[Medline]
Marshall, N. J. (1988). A unique colour and polarization vision system in mantis shrimps. Nature 333, 557560.[Medline]
Marshall, J., Cronin, T. W., Shashar, N. and Land, M. (1999). Behavioural evidence for polarization vision in stomatopods reveals a potential channel for communication. Curr. Biol. 9, 755758.[Medline]
Marshall, N. J., Land, M. F., King, C. A. and Cronin, T. W. (1991). The compound eyes of mantis shrimps (Crustacea, Hoplocarida, Stomatopoda). I. Compound eye structure: the detection of polarised light. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 334, 3356.
Moody, M. F. and Parriss, J. R. (1961). The discrimination of polarized light by Octopus: a behavioural and morphological study. Z. Vergl. Physiol. 44, 268291.
Munro, U. and Wiltschko, R. (1995). The role of skylight polarization in the orientation of a day-migrating bird species. J. Comp. Physiol. A 177, 357362.
Neumeyer, C. (1986). Wavelength discrimination in the goldfish. J. Comp. Physiol. A 158, 203213.
Nilsson, D.-E. (1996). Eye design, vision and invisibility in planktonic invertebrates. In Zooplankton: Sensory Ecology and Physiology (ed. P. H. Lenz, D. K. Hartline, J. E. Purcell and D. L. Macmillan), pp. 149162. Amsterdam: Gordon & Breach Publishers.
Nilsson, D.-E. and Warrant, E. J. (1999). Visual discrimination: seeing the third quality of light. Curr. Biol. 9, R535R537.[Medline]
Novales-Flamarique, I., Hawryshyn, C. W. and Harosi, F. I. (1998). Double-cone internal reflection as a basis for polarization detection in fish. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 15, 349358.
Petzold, J. (2001). Polarisationsempfindliche Neuronen im Sehsystem der Feldgrille Gryllus campestris: Elektrophysiologie, Anatomie und Modellrechnungen. PhD thesis, University of Zürich.
Pomozi, I., Horvóth, G. and Wehner, R. (2001). How the clear-sky angle of polarization pattern continues underneath clouds: full-sky measurements and implications for animal orientation. J. Exp. Biol. 204, in press.
Räber, F. (1979). Retinatopographie und Sehfeldtopologie des Komplexauges von Cataglyphis bicolor (Formicidae, Hymenoptera) und einiger verwandter Formiciden-Arten. PhD thesis, University of Zürich.
Rossel, S. and Wehner, R. (1984). How bees analyse the polarization patterns in the sky: experiments and model. J. Comp. Physiol. A 154, 607615.
Rowe, M. P., Engheta, N., Easter, S. S. and Pugh, E. N. (1994). Graded-index model of a fish double cone exhibits differential polarization sensitivity. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 11, 5570.[Medline]
Schwind, R. (1983). Zonation of the optical environment and zonation in the rhabdom structure within the eye of the backswimmer, Notonecta glauca. Cell Tissue Res. 232, 5363.[Medline]
Schwind, R. (1984). The plunge reaction of the backswimmer Notonecta glauca. J. Comp. Physiol. A 155, 319321.
Schwind, R. (1991). Polarization vision in water insects and insects living on a moist substrate. J. Comp. Physiol. A 169, 531540.
Schwind, R. (1999). Daphnia pulex swims towards the most strongly polarized light: a response that leads to shore flight. J. Exp. Biol. 202, 36313635.
Shashar, N., Rutledge, P. S. and Cronin, T. W. (1996). Polarization vision in cuttlefish: a concealed communication channel? J. Exp. Biol. 199, 20772084.
Vitzthum, H. (1997). Der Zentralkomplex der Heuschrecke Schistocerca gregaria: Ein mögliches Zentrum des Polarisationssehsystems. PhD thesis, University of Regensburg.
von Frisch, K. (1965). Tanzsprache und Orientierung der Bienen. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
Wehner, R. (1982). Himmelsnavigation bei Insekten. Neurophysiologie und Verhalten. Neujahrsbl. Naturforsch. Ges. Zürich 184, 1132.
Wehner, R. (1994). The polarization-vision project: championing organismic biology. Fortschr. Zool. 39, 103143.
Wehner, R. (1996). Polarisationsmusteranalyse bei Insekten. Nova Acta Leopoldina NF 72, 159183.
Wehner, R. (1997). The ants celestial compass system: spectral and polarization channels. In Orientation and Communication in Arthropods (ed. M. Lehrer), pp. 145185. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag.
Wehner, R. and Bernard, G. D. (1993). Photoreceptor twist: a solution to the false-color problem. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 90, 41324135.[Abstract]
Wehner, R., Bernard, G. D. and Geiger, E. (1975). Twisted and non-twisted rhabdoms and their significance for polarization detection in the bee. J. Comp. Physiol. 104, 225245.
Wehner, R., Fukushi, T. and Wehner, S. (1992). Rotatory components of movement in high speed desert ants, Cataglyphis bombycina. In Proceedings of the 20th Göttingen Neurobiology Conference (ed. N. Elsner and D. W. Richter), p. 303. Stuttgart, New York: Thieme.
Wehner, R. and Rossel, S. (1985). The bees celestial compass a case study in behavioural neurobiology. Fortschr. Zool. 31, 1153.
Wehner, R. and Strasser, S. (1985). The POL area of the honey bees eye: behavioural evidence. Physiol. Ent. 10, 337349.