Crossmodal Visual Input for Odor Tracking during Fly Flight

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Visual Control of Altitude in Flying Drosophila
Advertisements

Voice Cells in the Primate Temporal Lobe
Volume 26, Issue 24, Pages (December 2016)
Harold A. Burgess, Hannah Schoch, Michael Granato  Current Biology 
Jean-Michel Mongeau, Mark A. Frye  Current Biology 
Flying Drosophila Orient to Sky Polarization
Volume 78, Issue 6, Pages (June 2013)
Drosophila Tracks Carbon Dioxide in Flight
Decision Making during the Psychological Refractory Period
Yan Zhu, Aljoscha Nern, S. Lawrence Zipursky, Mark A. Frye 
Idiothetic Path Integration in the Fruit Fly Drosophila melanogaster
Volume 27, Issue 22, Pages e3 (November 2017)
Perceptual Echoes at 10 Hz in the Human Brain
Walking Modulates Speed Sensitivity in Drosophila Motion Vision
Volume 78, Issue 6, Pages (June 2013)
Optic Flow Cues Guide Flight in Birds
Ian M. Finn, Nicholas J. Priebe, David Ferster  Neuron 
Ant Navigation: One-Way Routes Rather Than Maps
Selective Attention in an Insect Visual Neuron
Neural Mechanisms for Drosophila Contrast Vision
Malcolm Burrows, Darron A. Cullen, Marina Dorosenko, Gregory P. Sutton 
Volume 22, Issue 14, Pages (July 2012)
Björn Brembs, Wolfgang Plendl  Current Biology 
Jason Samaha, Bradley R. Postle  Current Biology 
Volume 27, Issue 5, Pages (March 2017)
Volume 82, Issue 5, Pages (June 2014)
Visual Sensitivity Underlying Changes in Visual Consciousness
Olfactory Neuromodulation of Motion Vision Circuitry in Drosophila
Gamma and the Coordination of Spiking Activity in Early Visual Cortex
Visual Control of Altitude in Flying Drosophila
Rapid Innate Defensive Responses of Mice to Looming Visual Stimuli
Consequences of the Oculomotor Cycle for the Dynamics of Perception
Figure Tracking by Flies Is Supported by Parallel Visual Streams
Franco Pestilli, Marisa Carrasco, David J. Heeger, Justin L. Gardner 
Optic Flow Cues Guide Flight in Birds
The Occipital Place Area Is Causally Involved in Representing Environmental Boundaries during Navigation  Joshua B. Julian, Jack Ryan, Roy H. Hamilton,
Katherine M. Armstrong, Jamie K. Fitzgerald, Tirin Moore  Neuron 
Walking Modulates Speed Sensitivity in Drosophila Motion Vision
Opposite Effects of Recent History on Perception and Decision
Ethan S. Bromberg-Martin, Masayuki Matsumoto, Okihide Hikosaka  Neuron 
Mosquitoes Use Vision to Associate Odor Plumes with Thermal Targets
Volume 27, Issue 21, Pages e3 (November 2017)
Perception Matches Selectivity in the Human Anterior Color Center
Flies see second-order motion
Attentive Tracking of Sound Sources
Consequences of the Oculomotor Cycle for the Dynamics of Perception
Franco Pestilli, Marisa Carrasco, David J. Heeger, Justin L. Gardner 
Optic flow induces spatial filtering in fruit flies
Peng Zhang, Min Bao, Miyoung Kwon, Sheng He, Stephen A. Engel 
Dissociable Effects of Salience on Attention and Goal-Directed Action
Malcolm Burrows, Darron A. Cullen, Marina Dorosenko, Gregory P. Sutton 
Visual Scene Perception in Navigating Wood Ants
Insect Navigation: How Do Wasps Get Home?
Dongjun He, Daniel Kersten, Fang Fang  Current Biology 
Volume 18, Issue 5, Pages (March 2008)
Paolo Domenici, David Booth, Jonathan M. Blagburn, Jonathan P. Bacon 
Visually Mediated Motor Planning in the Escape Response of Drosophila
Higher-Order Figure Discrimination in Fly and Human Vision
Daniela Vallentin, Andreas Nieder  Current Biology 
The Perception and Misperception of Specular Surface Reflectance
Marie P. Suver, Akira Mamiya, Michael H. Dickinson  Current Biology 
Christoph Kayser, Nikos K. Logothetis, Stefano Panzeri  Current Biology 
Søren K. Andersen, Steven A. Hillyard, Matthias M. Müller 
Incidental Processing of Biological Motion
Gaby Maimon, Andrew D. Straw, Michael H. Dickinson  Current Biology 
Drosophila Tracks Carbon Dioxide in Flight
Multi-Cue Integration: How Female Mosquitoes Locate a Human Host
Maxwell H. Turner, Fred Rieke  Neuron 
Head-Eye Coordination at a Microscopic Scale
Motion-Induced Blindness and Motion Streak Suppression
Presentation transcript:

Crossmodal Visual Input for Odor Tracking during Fly Flight Brian J. Duistermars, Mark A. Frye  Current Biology  Volume 18, Issue 4, Pages 270-275 (February 2008) DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2008.01.027 Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Magnetic Tether Flight Arena and Active Odor Plume Tracking (A) A fly glued to a steel pin is suspended on a magnetic pivot, free to yaw. Visual stimuli are displayed on a computer-controlled, circular LED array. Air is diverted through solenoid valves, bubbled through reservoirs of water and apple cider vinegar, and delivered in narrow, laminar plumes drawn downward into a vacuum chamber. The fly's body is illuminated with infrared light and is tracked with infrared video. (B) Left: Shown are four exemplar flight trajectories illustrating variation in heading within the circular arena. In each trace, vinegar odor was continuously emanating from the 180° position and water vapor from the 360° position. Right: for the same heading trajectories, the rate of change of heading reveals transients representing varying-amplitude body saccades. Orange shading indicates segments in which the fly was oriented directly into the odor plume defined by the ±20° fraction of the arena surrounding the plume location. (C) Distribution of heading for flies flown in each of three odor treatments for 30 s shows that flies track attractive odor stimuli at both sides of the arena. The visual stimulus consisted of a high-contrast, evenly striped panorama. Bin width is 6°, n = 32 flies. (D and E) In (D), graphs illustrate the mean saccade amplitudes for experiments in which the flies received only the water vapor control (no odor) and for experiments in which the vinegar vapor was presented at 180° and water vapor at 0°. (E) Graphs show mean intersaccade interval (ISI). For (D) and (E), n = 39 flies, error bars represent SEM; Paired t test, ∗∗p < 0.01. Saccades were programmatically identified by fluctuations in angular velocity greater than 1 SD from the mean, a lower threshold than has been used in other studies [9, 11]. Current Biology 2008 18, 270-275DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2008.01.027) Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Influence of Wide-Field Panoramic Visual Feedback on Active Odor-Plume Tracking Each fly was drawn into the plume (vinegar or water vapor control) with an oscillating vertical stripe, and then the visual scene was instantaneously switched to either a wide-field, high-contrast striped pattern or a uniform grayscale pattern of equal mean luminance. Each column indicates (1) the visual stimulus, (2) four sample trajectories colored for visual distinction, (3) mean trajectory distribution with the relative probability indicated with pseudo-color, (4) a measure of how well flies track the odor plume—the mean cumulative deviation from the 180° plume position (i.e., line integral of the absolute value of heading minus 180) such that smaller values indicate better plume tracking. The mean and SD are represented by the black line and gray envelope, respectively. Each fly was presented once, and only once, with all stimulus conditions that included (A) uniform visual background and water vapor plume (indicated with blue shading), (B) high-contrast visual background and water vapor plume, (C) high-contrast visual background and odor plume (indicated with orange shading), and (D) uniform visual background and odor plume. (E) To “rescue” the effect of diminished visual feedback, flies were sequentially flown for 20 s in the high-contrast stripe treatment, the uniform treatment, and a second high-contrast treatment while the vinegar plume was present continuously. n = 39 flies; Paired t test, ∗∗p < 0.01; Error bars represent SEM. Current Biology 2008 18, 270-275DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2008.01.027) Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Influence of a Small-Field Object Cue on Active Odor-Plume Tracking Each fly was visually drawn into the plume as described in Figure 2. Visual stimuli consisted of a single, 30° wide stripe located 90° from the plume. Data are plotted as described in Figure 2. Each fly was presented once, and only once, with all stimulus conditions, which included: (A) lateral stripe and water vapor plume (indicated with blue shading) and (B) lateral stripe and odor plume (indicated with orange shading). (C) Graphs illustrate the effects of three visual treatments on minimizing cumulative plume deviation (n = 26 flies; Paired t test, ∗∗p < 0.01). Error bars represent SEM. Current Biology 2008 18, 270-275DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2008.01.027) Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions