Archive

Archive for the ‘Papers from 2017’ Category

Steering a ring attractor

In recent years we have started to learn about the circuitry that underpins spatial behaviour in insects. One of the most important findings has been that of a ring attractor circuit in the ellipsoid body of the central complex of insects. This circuit can represent heading and is updated via visual or proprioceptive information. Now, the understanding of how this ring-attractor works is expanding to the associated structures. Green et al. have detailed how specific neurons, in a brain areas connected to the ellipsoid body, are involved in the driving of neural activity in the ring attractor. This opens up the potential for us to understand how sensory input contributes to the neural representation of spatial information.

Green, J., Adachi, A., Shah, K. K., Hirokawa, J. D., Magani, P. S., & Maimon, G. (2017). A neural circuit architecture for angular integration in Drosophila. Nature546(7656), 101-106.

Categories: Papers from 2017

It ain’t what you do its the way that you do it.

Nobody would argue with the statement that insects have rich and interesting behaviour repertoires that require (presumably) non-trivial neural circuitry. However, how insects fit into the field of comparative cognition, where we look at cognitive processes across animals as a function of their ecology and phylogeny, is unclear. One approach is to demonstrate the similarity of insect behaviours (that seemingly require cognition) with behaviours of vertebrates (that are assumed to be cognitive). This top-down approach can often lead to a game of semantics. The alternative is a bottom-up approach, focussing on the mechanisms needed for a particular paper.
In this review, Perry et al., take a series of examples and certainly demonstrate the interesting richness of insect behaviour, whilst showing an understanding of how this field can progress. For example, here is a quote from the Discussion section of their paper: “While it is tempting to explore ever more human-like types of cognitive operations in insects and other animals, the field of comparative cognition needs to move on to discover the neural underpinnings of cognition. The same cognitive capacity might be mediated by entirely different neural circuitries in different species, with a many-to-one mapping between behavioural routines, computations and their neural implementations. In fact, before we can understand a cognitive operation as a circuit function we should be wary of rating them as ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ forms of cognition.”
I personally feel like we are getting close to such an understanding of insect navigation. Especially, with interesting behavioural work on ants and new neurobiological findings from flies and other insects.
Perry, C. J., Barron, A. B., & Chittka, L. (2017). The frontiers of insect cognition. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences16, 111-118.
Categories: Papers from 2017

Real world problem solving

Here is a fun looking paper where ants have been set a series of physical problems (path choice, door pushing and barrier avoidance). Perhaps unsurprisingly, ants (as clever critters) as adept at ‘solving’ these real-world challenges.

The pdf is available here: <http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijb/article/view/67868/36990&gt;

Abstract: “Aiming to know the extent of the ants’ cognitive abilities, we set Myrmica ruginodis workers in four problematic situations. We discovered that these ants could walk round a barrier, by foraging and navigating as usual, using known visual cues. They could walk preferentially on smooth substrates instead of rough ones, but did not memorize their choice. This behavior may be due to the easier deposit of pheromones on a smooth substrate. The ants could establish a single way when having only two narrow paths for going in and out of their nest. This was the consequence of the ants’ traffic and of the distinct pheromonal deposits while going in and out of the nest. The oldest ants needing sugar water could push a door for getting such water. They did so by having the audacity to go on walking, whatever the presence of a door. Such a door is not a tool sensu stricto. Future studies will examine if ants can lean new techniques, can use tools and/or can learn using tools.”

Cammaerts, M. C. (2017). Ants’ Ability in Solving Simple Problems. International Journal of Biology, 9(3), 26.

Categories: Papers from 2017

Skylines for navigation

A lovely paper here with some really nice behavioural experiments. Towne et al., have a long history of studying the use of skyline cues for navigation, almost 10 years ago they showed the important connection between the skyline and the compass system of bees. Here they look at the use of skyline cues for navigation, where learnt visual cues are used for setting a familiar direction. Using a small white arena they replicate a familiar skyline using black paint to create a silhouette. Bees are happy to set their direction relative to this artificial skyline even when it indicates a direction perpendicular or opposite to their normal homeward flight direction. Thus we now have good evidence that for bees, as for ants, the skyline is a sufficient source of information for navigation.
Another significant implication of this paper is that we can probe the visual knowledge of bees, that have foraged in natural complex environments, using a small scale and simple (elegant) experimental procedure. This could be a really powerful method.
Towne, W. F., Ritrovato, A. E., Esposto, A., & Brown, D. F. (2017). Honeybees use the skyline in orientation. Journal of Experimental Biology, jeb-160002.
Categories: Papers from 2017

Long-term retention of skyline memories

Ants foragers live short lives but within that they must pack a lot in. Foraging drives navigation skills which require specific types of memory, the memory for panoramic scenes being one such navigational memory. Here, Freas et al., show that ants can remember navigationally useful panoramic scenes for over 5 days, which is longer than their average foraging life.

Freas, C. A., Whyte, C., & Cheng, K. (2017). Skyline retention and retroactive interference in the navigating Australian desert ant, Melophorus bagoti. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 1-15.
Categories: Papers from 2017

Positional control via optic flow 

Some of the most famous bee experiments in navigation and positional control involve bees flying down tunnels. The striped side walls of said tunnels have been used to demonstrate the optic flow input to odometry and the flow speed control of position. However, what happens when the tunnels become wider and walls are further away; Much more like a natural object distribution. Here, Linander et al., show that in wider tunnels, bees use ventral optic flow to control a straight path. This suggests a system where optic flow from different parts of the flow field can be used for the same tasks.

Linander, N., Baird, E. & Dacke, M. J Comp Physiol A (2017). How bumblebees use lateral and ventral optic flow cues for position control in environments of different proximity. doi:10.1007/s00359-017-1173-9

Categories: Papers from 2017

Site fidelity as a universal navigation strategy

Amblypygids (whip spiders) live in complex densely vegetated environments. They forage in near complete darkness using navigational mechanisms that are yet to be elucidated. Although this paper doesn’t clear up the navigational mystery, it does demonstrate an important behavioural property that relates to the constraints that promote certain navigational skills. These invertebrates use shelters as a refuge and in lab experiments they show fidelity to a particular shelter. Site fidelty (and route fidelity) seem to be universal behavioural biases, which presumably, for many organisms,  facilitate the use of universal navigation strategies such as Path Integration and memory of sensory signatures.

Graving, J.M., Bingman, V.P., Hebets, E.A. et al. J Comp Physiol A (2017). doi:10.1007/s00359-017-1169-5
Categories: Papers from 2017