4.8 Article

Optic flow in the natural habitats of zebrafish supports spatial biases in visual self-motion estimation

期刊

CURRENT BIOLOGY
卷 32, 期 23, 页码 5008-+

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2022.10.009

关键词

-

资金

  1. Human Frontier Science Program (HFSP) Young Investigator [RGY0079]
  2. P30 core grant [NIH EY003176]
  3. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [EXC307]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrates that different species exhibit spatial biases when estimating self-motion, possibly as a strategy to adapt to noisy natural environments. Observations on larval zebrafish suggest that the lateral regions of the lower visual field provide the most informative signals for estimating swimming speed.
Animals benefit from knowing if and how they are moving. Across the animal kingdom, sensory information in the form of optic flow over the visual field is used to estimate self-motion. However, different species exhibit strong spatial biases in how they use optic flow. Here, we show computationally that noisy natural environments favor visual systems that extract spatially biased samples of optic flow when estimating self-motion. The performance associated with these biases, however, depends on interactions between the environment and the animal's brain and behavior. Using the larval zebrafish as a model, we recorded natural optic flow associated with swimming trajectories in the animal's habitat with an omnidirectional camera mounted on a mechanical arm. An analysis of these flow fields suggests that lateral regions of the lower visual field are most informative about swimming speed. This pattern is consistent with the recent findings that zebrafish optomotor responses are preferentially driven by optic flow in the lateral lower visual field, which we extend with behavioral results from a high-resolution spherical arena. Spatial biases in optic-flow sampling are likely pervasive because they are an effective strategy for determining self-motion in noisy natural environments.

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

4.8
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