4.5 Article

Collision avoidance by running insects: antennal guidance in cockroaches

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
卷 213, 期 13, 页码 2294-2302

出版社

COMPANY OF BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.036996

关键词

cockroach; antenna; mechanosensory information; behavior; escape

类别

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [04-22883]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cockroaches were observed with videographic methods as escape running was initiated, but with obstacles in the path of their run. The goal was to determine the repertoire of possible responses to obstacles and the sensory cues used to trigger the responses. Intact cockroaches collided with obstacles on only about 10% of trials. The most common collision avoidance strategy was simply to stop running prior to impact. However, occasionally animals moved vertically and climbed over the barrier, or turned and navigated an edge of the obstacle, or completely reversed run direction. The avoidance strategies chosen depended on the size and configuration of the obstacle. Tests for the use of vision in detecting obstacles showed that its role, if any, is small. However, all manipulations that altered the antennal system changed behavior in a way consistent with the hypothesis that antennal mechanosensation plays a major role in collision avoidance. For example, reducing antennal length, or severing the main antennal nerve without altering the length produced significant increases in the frequency of collisions. Tests with tethered insects showed that (1) the antennae are preferentially directed forward as animals run, and (2) nearly simultaneous contact with both antennae is required to make the cockroach stop. Our data indicate that running cockroaches employ strategies that set their sensorimotor systems in a mode of readiness to deal with obstacles and they suggest that sensory information about the presence and configuration of obstacles is used to make choices, at very short latencies, about how to respond to obstructions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据