4.5 Article

Comparison of visual and haltere-mediated feedback in the control of body saccades in Drosophila melanogaster

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
卷 209, 期 23, 页码 4597-4606

出版社

COMPANY OF BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.02583

关键词

Drosophila; saccade; vision; haltere; feedback.

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The flight trajectories of fruit flies consist of straight flight segments interspersed with rapid turns called body saccades. Although the saccades are stereotyped, it is not known whether their brief time course is due to a feed-forward (predetermined) motor program or due to feedback from sensory systems that are reflexively activated by the rapid rotation. Two sensory modalities, the visual system and the mechanosensory halteres, are likely sources of such feedback because they are sensitive to angular velocities within the range experienced during saccades. Utilizing a magnetic tether in which flies are fixed in space but free to rotate about their yaw axis, we systematically manipulated the feedback from the visual and haltere systems to test their role in determining the time course of body saccades. We found that altering visual feedback had no significant effect on the dynamics of saccades, whereas increasing and decreasing the amount of haltere-mediated feedback decreased and increased saccade amplitude, respectively. In other experiments, we altered the aerodynamic surface of the wings such that the flies had to actively modify their wing-stroke kinematics to maintain straight flight on the magnetic tether. Flies exhibit such modification, but the control is compromised in the dark, indicating that the visual system does provide feedback for flight stability at lower angular velocities, to which the haltere system is less sensitive. Cutting the wing surface disrupted the time course of the saccades, indicating that although flies employ sensory feedback to modulate saccade dynamics, it is not precise or fast enough to compensate for large changes in wing efficacy.

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