4.5 Article

Goal seeking in honeybees: matching of optic flow snapshots?

Journal

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
Volume 213, Issue 17, Pages 2913-2923

Publisher

COMPANY BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.043737

Keywords

honeybee; landmark navigation; snapshot matching; vision

Categories

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)
  2. Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Visual landmarks guide humans and animals including insects to a goal location. Insects, with their miniature brains, have evolved a simple strategy to find their nests or profitable food sources; they approach a goal by finding a close match between the current view and a memorised retinotopic representation of the landmark constellation around the goal. Recent implementations of such a matching scheme use raw panoramic images ('image matching') and show that it is well suited to work on robots and even in natural environments. However, this matching scheme works only if relevant landmarks can be detected by their contrast and texture. Therefore, we tested how honeybees perform in localising a goal if the landmarks can hardly be distinguished from the background by such cues. We recorded the honeybees' flight behaviour with high-speed cameras and compared the search behaviour with computer simulations. We show that honeybees are able to use landmarks that have the same contrast and texture as the background and suggest that the bees use relative motion cues between the landmark and the background. These cues are generated on the eyes when the bee moves in a characteristic way in the vicinity of the landmarks. This extraordinary navigation performance can be explained by a matching scheme that includes snapshots based on optic flow amplitudes ('optic flow matching'). This new matching scheme provides a robust strategy for navigation, as it depends primarily on the depth structure of the environment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available