Prey catching in the archer fish: does the fish use a learned correction for refraction?

Timmermans, P.J.A.; Vossen, J.M.H.

doi:10.1016/s0376-6357(00)00107-8

Cited by 32 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Timmermans and Vossen (2000) found that spitting archer fish overshot and undershot in comparable frequency, and that specific aiming patterns varied substantially by individual. While individual variation in aim was also observed in the present study, undershoot was never observed during kinematic experiments, and specimens 3-5 had a much higher range of overshoots than specimens 1 and 2 (Fig.…”

Section: Discussion Use Of Oscillatory Kinematics For Jumpingmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…This control over spitting is facilitated by sophisticated eyesight. Despite refraction of light at the surface and gravity effects on the water jet, spitting still hits prey with impressive accuracy (Dill, 1977;Timmermans and Vossen, 2000;Schuster et al, 2004). Aiming studies have shown Toxotes can account for viewpoint dependency (Schuster et al, 2004) and connect apparent size of the bait with relative position to the target .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Archer fish jumping prey capture: kinematics and hydrodynamics

Shih

Mendelson

Techet

2017

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Smallscale archer fish, Toxotes microlepis, are best known for spitting jets of water to capture prey, but also hunt by jumping out of the water to heights of up to 2.5 body lengths. In this study, high-speed imaging and particle image velocimetry were used to characterize the kinematics and hydrodynamics of this jumping behavior. Jumping used a set of kinematics distinct from those of in-water feeding strikes and was segmented into three phases: (1) hovering to sight prey at the surface, (2) rapid upward thrust production and (3) gliding to the prey once out of the water. The number of propulsive tail strokes positively correlated with the height of the bait, as did the peak body velocity observed during a jump. During the gliding stage, the fish traveled ballistically; the kinetic energy when the fish left the water balanced with the change in potential energy from water exit to the maximum jump height. The ballistic estimate of the mechanical energy required to jump was comparable with the estimated mechanical energy requirements of spitting a jet with sufficient momentum to down prey and subsequently pursuing the prey in water. Particle image velocimetry showed that, in addition to the caudal fin, the wakes of the anal, pectoral and dorsal fins were of nontrivial strength, especially at the onset of thrust production. During jump initiation, these fins were used to produce as much vertical acceleration as possible given the spatial constraint of starting directly at the water's surface to aim.

show abstract

Section: Discussion Use Of Oscillatory Kinematics For Jumpingmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Archer fish jumping prey capture: kinematics and hydrodynamics

Shih

Mendelson

Techet

2017

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Archer fish studies have focused on spitting accuracy (39)(40)(41)(42), biomechanics of spitting (43)(44)(45)(46), neural coding (47), and learning sensorimotor skills (48)(49)(50). In addition, a recent study also demonstrated that archer fish can learn to discriminate a large number of human face images (51).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endogenous orienting in the archer fish

Saban

Sekely

Klein

et al. 2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The literature has long emphasized the neocortex's role in volitional processes. In this work, we examined endogenous orienting in an evolutionarily older species, the archer fish, which lacks neocortexlike cells. We used Posner's classic endogenous cuing task, in which a centrally presented, spatially informative cue is followed by a target. The fish responded to the target by shooting a stream of water at it. Interestingly, the fish demonstrated a human-like "volitional" facilitation effect: their reaction times to targets that appeared on the side indicated by the precue were faster than their reaction times to targets on the opposite side. The fish also exhibited inhibition of return, an aftermath of orienting that commonly emerges only in reflexive orienting tasks in human participants. We believe that this pattern demonstrates the acquisition of an arbitrary connection between spatial orienting and a nonspatial feature of a centrally presented stimulus in nonprimate species. In the literature on human attention, orienting in response to such contingencies has been strongly associated with volitional control. We discuss the implications of these results for the evolution of orienting, and for the study of volitional processes in all species, including humans.volitional orienting | subcortical regions | endogenous orienting | IOR | attention H umans are commonly assumed to have volitional abilities that species lacking a neocortex (e.g., fish and amphibians) do not have. The literature has long emphasized the role of cortical mechanisms in these exclusive cognitive abilities. But is a neocortex necessary for a species to manifest behaviors that have been attributed to volitional control? To examine this question, we tested whether the archer fish (Toxotes chatareus) is capable of endogenous orienting.Driven by bottom-up stimulation, reflexive orienting is fast and automatic as a result of tuning through natural selection. Volitional orienting is relatively nonreflexive and is tuned to local contingencies and/or the immediate goals of the individual (1). In the current study, we adopt the typical perspective regarding spatial attention, as put forward by Posner (2), which is characterized by two distinctions: whether covert or overt adjustments are made, and whether these adjustments are under endogenous (volitional) or exogenous (reflexive) control. The most common methods for examining reflexive and volitional attentional processes are two versions of Posner's cuing task (2, 3). In this task, participants are presented with a cue followed by a peripheral target to which they are instructed to respond. Two task properties are important for determining which mode of orienting is generated. The first is whether or not the cue is informative about the location of the upcoming target, and the second is whether or not the input pathway of the upcoming target might be stimulated by the cue. When studying reflexive orienting, the peripheral location where a target might appear, or one nearby, is stimulated by a cue...

show abstract

“…Since then research on archerfish has focused on the biomechanics of spitting (Myers 1952;Lü ling 1958;Milburn et al 1976;Elshoud & Koomen 1985), and spitting accuracy (Herald 1956;Bekoff & Dorr 1976;Timmermans 2000Timmermans , 2001, particularly in light of the distortions that occur at the air -water interface owing to refraction (Dill 1977;Barta & Horvath 2003;Schuster et al 2004;Temple 2007). Recently, archerfish have become a model for investigating learning (Timmermans & Vossen 2000;Schuster et al 2004Schuster et al , 2006, as well as neural coding and circuitry in the visual system (Segev et al 2007). Yet, surprisingly little is known about archerfish basic biology Simon et al , 2009) let alone their vision (Lü ling 1956(Lü ling , 1958Braekevelt 1985a,b;Plotkin et al 2008), which is central to foraging and predator evasion both above and below the water's surface.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A spitting image: specializations in archerfish eyes for vision at the interface between air and water

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Archerfish are famous for spitting jets of water to capture terrestrial insects, a task that not only requires oral dexterity, but also the ability to detect small camouflaged prey against a visually complex background of overhanging foliage. Because detection of olfactory, auditory and tactile cues is diminished at air-water interfaces, archerfish must depend almost entirely on visual cues to mediate their sensory interactions with the aerial world. During spitting, their eyes remain below the water's surface and must adapt to the optical demands of both aquatic and aerial fields of view. These challenges suggest that archerfish eyes may be specially adapted to life at the interface between air and water. Using microspectrophotometry to characterize the spectral absorbance of photoreceptors, we find that archerfish have differentially tuned their rods and cones across their retina, correlated with spectral differences in aquatic and aerial fields of view. Spatial resolving power also differs for aquatic and aerial fields of view with maximum visual resolution (6.9 cycles per degree) aligned with their preferred spitting angle. These measurements provide insight into the functional significance of intraretinal variability in archerfish and infer intraretinal variability may be expected among surface fishes or vertebrates where different fields of view vary markedly.

show abstract

Prey catching in the archer fish: does the fish use a learned correction for refraction?

Cited by 32 publications

References 9 publications

Archer fish jumping prey capture: kinematics and hydrodynamics

Archer fish jumping prey capture: kinematics and hydrodynamics

Endogenous orienting in the archer fish

A spitting image: specializations in archerfish eyes for vision at the interface between air and water

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About