Skip to main content
Log in

Some operating rules for the optomotor system of a hoverfly during voluntary flight

  • Published:
Journal of comparative physiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

  1. 1.

    Two rules are proposed which can account for the way image motion in a horizontal plane helpsSyritta pipiens cope with disturbances during voluntary flight. The fly seems to assume that it moves within a stationary environment and that externally generated image motion is the result of some disturbance to its intended flight pattern and should be minimized.

  2. 2.

    The first rule is concerned with the control of angular velocity. WhenSyritta cruises with no clear goal in view it keeps the angular orientation of its body constant apart from saccade-like reorientations. Thus during undisturbed flight there will be image motion all over the retina, except for regions which either look along the direction of flight or directly behind.Syritta can thus assume that any image motion over these regions (the poles of the flow field) is caused by a disturbance. Duringforward flight externally generated image motion only influences the fly's angular velocity if it occurs overfrontal retina (Fig. 6). But when the fly movessideways with respect to its long axis, so that the pole of the flow field shifts to lateral retina, image motion confined to frontal retina no longer has any effect on angular velocity (Fig. 6). It is therefore proposed that during cruising angular orientation is governed principally by image motion over the poles of the flow field.

  3. 3.

    The second rule covers the control of translational velocity. This parameter seems to be governed by externally generated image motion over a much wider area of retina. It is proposed that each small region of retina influences a component of thrust at right angles to the direction of regard of that retinal region. The total translational response is assumed to be caused by the summed effects of image motion over many such retinal areas. Support for this rule comes from the behaviour ofSyritta when flying parallel to a vertically striped wall that moves from side to side (Fig. 7). The movement of the wall influences a component of thrust parallel to the wall, whether the fly views the wall with frontal or with lateral retina.

  4. 4.

    It is explained how these two rules can resolve the image motion resulting from a disturbance like a gust of wind into rotational and translational components.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Collett, T.S.: Peering — a locust behaviour pattern for obtaining motion parallax information. J. Exp. Biol.76, 237–241 (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  • Collett, T.S., Land, M.F.: Visual control of flight behaviour in the hoverfly,Syritta pipiens L. J. Comp. Physiol.99, 1–65 (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  • David, C.T.: Optomotor control of speed and height by free-flyingDrosophila. J. Exp. Biol.82, 389–392 (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J.J.: The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin 1979

    Google Scholar 

  • Götz, K.G.: Principles of optomotor reactions in insects. Bibl. Ophthalmol.82, 251–259 (1972)

    Google Scholar 

  • Götz, K.G.: The optomotor equilibrium of theDrosophila navigation system. J. Comp. Physiol.99, 187–210 (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  • Heran, H.: Versuche über die Windkompensation der Bienen. Naturwissenschaften42, 132–133 (1955)

    Google Scholar 

  • Heran, H., Lindauer, M.: Windkompensation und Seitenwindkorrektur der Bienen beim Flug über Wasser. Z. Vergl. Physiol.47, 39–55 (1963)

    Google Scholar 

  • Holst, E. von, Mittelstaedt, H.: Das Reafferenzprinzip (Wechselwirkungen zwischen Zentralnervensystem und Peripherie). Naturwissenschaften37, 464–476 (1950)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalmus, H.: Optomotor responses inDrosophila andMusca. Physiol. Comp. ('s Grav.)1, 127–147 (1949)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalmus, H.: Animals as mathematicians. Nature (London)202, 1156–1160 (1964)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, J.S.: The visual responses of flying mosquitoes. Proc. Zool. Soc. (London) A109, 221–242 (1940)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, D.N.: Visual information during locomotion. In: Perception: essays in honor of James J. Gibson. McLeod, R.B., Pick, H.L., Jr. (eds.), pp. 250–267. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press 1974

    Google Scholar 

  • Pringle, J.W.S.: Insect flight. London: Cambridge University Press 1957

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichardt, W., Poggio, T.: Visual control of orientation behaviour in the fly. I: A quantitative analysis. Q. Rev. Biophys.9, 311–375 (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandeman, D.C.: Regionalization in the eye of the crabLeptograpsus variegatus: Eye movements evoked by a target moving in different parts of the visual field. J. Comp. Physiol.123, 299–306 (1978)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

I thank Brian Cartwright, Mike Land and Jochen Zeil for their very helpful comments on the manuscript, and Sally Byatt for her flawless typing. Financial support came from the U.K. Science Research Council.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Collett, T.S. Some operating rules for the optomotor system of a hoverfly during voluntary flight. J. Comp. Physiol. 138, 271–282 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00657045

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00657045

Keywords

Navigation