Abstract
Flies evaluate movement within their visual field in order to control the course of flight and to elicit landing manoeuvres. Although the motor output of the two types of responses is quite different, both systems can be compared with respect to the underlying movement detection systems. For a quantitative comparison, both responses were measured during tethered flight under identical conditions. The stimulus was a sinusoidal periodic pattern of vertical stripes presented bilaterally in the fronto-lateral eye region of the fly. To release the landing response, the pattern was moved on either side from front to back. The latency of the response depends on the stimulus conditions and was measured by means of an infrared light-beam that was interrupted whenever the fly lifted its forelegs to assume a preprogrammed landing posture (Borst and Bahde 1986). As an optomotor stimulus the pattern moved on one side from front to back and on the other side in the opposite direction. The induced turning tendency was measured by a torque meter (Götz 1964). The response values which will be compared are the inverse latencies of the landing response and the amplitude of the yaw torque.
-
1.
Optomotor course-control is more sensitive to pattern movement at small spatial wavelengths (10° and 20°) than the landing response (Fig. 1a and b). This suggests that elementary movement detectors (EMDs, Buchner 1976) with large detection base (the distance between interacting visual elements) contribute more strongly to the landing than to the optomotor system.
-
2.
The optimum contrast frequencies of the different responses obtained at a comparatively high pattern contrast of about 0.6 was found to be between 1 and 10 Hz for the optomotor response, and around 20 Hz for the landing response (Fig. 2a and b). This discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the optomotor response was tested under stationary conditions (several seconds of stimulation) while for the landing response transient response characteristics of the movement detectors have to be taken into account (landing occurs under these conditions within less than 100 ms after onset of the movement stimulus). To test the landing system under more stationary conditions, the pattern contrast had to be reduced to low values. This led to latencies of several seconds. Then the optimum of the landing response is around 4 Hz. This is in the optimum range of the optomotor course-control response. The result suggests the same filter time constants for the movement detectors of both systems.
-
3.
The dependence of both responses on the position and the size of the pattern was examined. The landing response has its optimum sensitivity more ventrally than the optomotor response (Fig. 3a and b). Both response amplitudes increase with the size of the pattern in a similar progression (Fig. 3c and d).
In first approximation, the present results are compatible with the assumption of a common set of movement detectors for both the optomotor course-control and the landing system. Movement detectors with different sampling bases and at different positions in the visual field seem to contribute with different gain to both responses. Accordingly, the control systems underlying both behaviors are likely to be independent already at the level of spatial integration of the detector output.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Borst A (1986) Time course of the houseflies' landing response. Biol Cybern 54:379–383
Borst A, Bahde S (1986) What kind of movement detector is triggering the landing response of the housefly? Biol Cybern 55:59–69
Borst A, Bahde S (1987) Landing response and movement detection in the fly. J Neurogen (in press)
Braitenberg V, Taddei Ferretti C (1966) Landing reaction of Musca domestica induced by visual stimuli. Naturwissenschaften 53:155–156
Buchner E (1976) Elementary movement detectors in an insect visual system. Biol Cybern 24:85–101
Buchner E (1984) Behavioral analysis of spatial vision in insects. In: Ali MA (ed) Photoreception and vision in invertebrates. Plenum Press, New York London, pp 561–622
Eckert H (1973) Optomotorische Untersuchungen am visuellen System der Stubenfliege Musca domestica L. Kybernetik 14:1–23
Eckert H (1980) Functional properties of the H1-neurone in the third optic ganglion of the blowfly, Phaenicia. J Comp Physiol 135:29–39
Eckert H, Hamdorf K (1983) Does a homogeneous population of elementary movement detectors activate the landing response of blowflies, Calliphora erythrocephala? Biol Cybern 48:11–18
Egelhaaf M (1985) On the neuronal basis of figure-ground discrimination by relative motion in the visual system of the fly. I. Behavioral constraints imposed on the neuronal network and the role of the optomotor system. Biol Cybern 52:123–140
Fermi G, Reichardt W (1963) Optomotorische Reaktionen der Fliege Musca domestica. Kybernetik 2:15–28
Geiger G, Poggio T (1975) The orientation of flies towards visual patterns: on the search for the underlying functional interactions. Biol Cybern 19:39–54
Götz KG (1964) Optomotorische Untersuchungen des visuellen Systems einiger Augenmutaten der Fruchtfliege Drosophila. Kybernetik 2:77–92
Götz KG (1965) Die optischen Übertragungseigenschaften der Komplexaugen von Drosophila. Kybernetik 2:215–221
Götz KG (1972) Principles of optomotor reactions in insects. Bibl Ophthalmd 82:251–259
Götz KG, Wenking H (1973) Visual control of locomotion in the walking fruit-fly Drosophila. J Comp Physiol 85:235–266
Hassenstein B, Reichardt W (1956) Systemtheoretische Analyse der Zeit-, Reihenfolgen- und Vorzeichenauswertung bei der Bewegungsperzeption des Rüsselkäfers Chlorophanus. Z Naturforsch 11b:513–524
Hausen K (1981) Monocular und binocular computation of motion in the lobula plate of the fly. Verh Dtsch Zool Ges 1981:49–70, Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart
Hausen K (1982) Motion sensitive interneurons in the optomotor system of the fly. II. The horizontal cells: receptive field organization and response characteristics. Biol Cybern 46:67–79
Hausen K (1984) The lobula complex of the fly: structure, function and significance in visual behavior. In: Ali MA (ed) Photoreception and vision in invertebrates. Plenum Press, New York London, pp 523–559
Hausen K, Wehrhahn C (1983) Microsurgical lesion of horizontal cells changes optomotor yaw responses in the blowfly Calliphora erythrocephala. Proc R Soc London Ser B 219:211–216
Heisenberg M, Buchner E (1977) The role of retinula cell types in visual behavior of Drosophila melanogaster. J Comp Physiol 117:127–162
Kunze P (1961) Untersuchung des Bewegungssehens fixiert fliegender Bienen. Z Vergl Physiol 44:656–684
McCann GD, MacGinitie GF (1965) Optomotor response studies of insect vision. Proc R Soc London Ser B 163:369–401
Pick B, Buchner E (1979) Visual movement detection under light-and dark-adaptation in the fly, Musca domestica. J Comp Physiol 134:45–54
Reichardt W (1961) Autocorrelation, a principle for the evaluation of sensory information by the central nervous system. In: Rosenblith WA (ed) Sensory communication. MIT Press, Wiley, New York London, pp 303–317
Reichardt W (1966) Detection of single quanta by the compound eye of the fly Musca. In: Bernhard CG (ed) Proceedings of the international symposium on the functional organization of the compound eye. Pergamon Press, Oxford New York, pp 267–289
Reichardt W, Poggio T, Hausen K (1983) Figure-ground discrimination by relative movement in the visual system of the fly. II. Towards the neural circuitry. Biol Cybern 46 (Suppl):1–30
Taddei Ferretti C, Perez de Talens AF (1973) Landing reaction of Musca domestica. IV. A. Monocular and binocular vision; B. Relationship between landing and optomotor reactions. Z Naturforsch 28c:579–592
Wehrhahn C (1985) Visual guidance of flies during flight. In: Kerkut GA, Gilbert LI (eds) Comprehensive insect physiology biochemistry and pharmacology 6. Pergamon, Oxford New York Toronto Sydney Paris Frankfurt, pp 673–684
Wehrhahn C, Hausen K, Zanker J (1981) Is the landing response of the housefly driven by motion of a flowfield? Biol Cybern 41:91–99
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Borst, A., Bahde, S. Comparison between the movement detection systems underlying the optomotor and the landing response in the housefly. Biol. Cybern. 56, 217–224 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00365216
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00365216