Group-level patterns emerge from individual speed as revealed by an extremely social robotic fish

Understanding the emergence of collective behaviour has long been a key research focus in the natural sciences. Besides the fundamental role of social interaction rules, a combination of theoretical and empirical work indicates individual speed may be a key process that drives the collective behaviour of animal groups. Socially-induced changes in speed by interacting animals make it difficult to isolate the effects of individual speed on group-level behaviours. Here we tackled this issue by pairing guppies with a biomimetic robot. We used a closed-loop tracking and feedback system to let a robotic fish naturally interact with a live partner in real time, and programmed it to strongly copy and follow its partner’s movements while lacking any preferred movement speed or directionality of its own. We show that individual differences in guppies’ movement speed were highly repeatable and shaped key collective patterns: higher individual speeds resulted in stronger leadership, lower cohesion, higher alignment, and better temporal coordination in the pairs. By combining the strengths of individual-based models and observational work with state-of-the-art robotics, we provide novel evidence that individual speed is a key, fundamental process in the emergence of collective behaviour.

[1]  T. Vicsek,et al.  Speed Determines Leadership and Leadership Determines Learning during Pigeon Flocking , 2015, Current Biology.

[2]  Kate L. Laskowski,et al.  The repeatability of behaviour: a meta-analysis , 2009, Animal Behaviour.

[3]  Cesare Stefanini,et al.  A review on animal–robot interaction: from bio-hybrid organisms to mixed societies , 2018, Biological Cybernetics.

[4]  J. Krause,et al.  Collective behavior in road crossing pedestrians: the role of social information , 2010 .

[5]  Steven V. Viscido,et al.  Individual behavior and emergent properties of fish schools: a comparison of observation and theory , 2004 .

[6]  J. Deneubourg,et al.  Interactive robots in experimental biology. , 2011, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[7]  I. Couzin,et al.  Collective memory and spatial sorting in animal groups. , 2002, Journal of theoretical biology.

[8]  David J. T. Sumpter,et al.  Identifying differences in the rules of interaction between individuals in moving animal groups , 2016, 1601.08202.

[9]  Paul Reeves,et al.  Positioning Behaviour in Roach Shoals: The Role of Body Length and Nutritional State , 1998 .

[10]  Timothy M. Schaerf,et al.  The effects of external cues on individual and collective behavior of shoaling fish , 2017, Science Advances.

[11]  J. Krause,et al.  The role of individuality in collective group movement , 2013, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[12]  Andrew J King,et al.  The Role of Individual Heterogeneity in Collective Animal Behaviour. , 2019, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[13]  S. Gueron,et al.  The Dynamics of Herds: From Individuals to Aggregations , 1996 .

[14]  D. Sumpter,et al.  How predation shapes the social interaction rules of shoaling fish , 2017, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[15]  Joseph T. Lizier,et al.  Speed-mediated properties of schooling , 2019, Royal Society Open Science.

[16]  Iain D. Couzin,et al.  Collective States, Multistability and Transitional Behavior in Schooling Fish , 2013, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[17]  Jens Krause,et al.  Why personality differences matter for social functioning and social structure. , 2014, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[18]  Iain D. Couzin,et al.  Consistent Individual Differences Drive Collective Behavior and Group Functioning of Schooling Fish , 2017, Current Biology.

[19]  Andrea Manica,et al.  Repeatable group differences in the collective behaviour of stickleback shoals across ecological contexts , 2018, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[20]  Iain D. Couzin,et al.  Schistocephalus parasite infection alters sticklebacks’ movement ability and thereby shapes social interactions , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[21]  D. Sumpter,et al.  Inferring the rules of interaction of shoaling fish , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[22]  Iain D Couzin,et al.  Potential Leaders Trade Off Goal-Oriented and Socially Oriented Behavior in Mobile Animal Groups , 2015, The American Naturalist.

[23]  Tim Landgraf,et al.  BioTracker: An Open-Source Computer Vision Framework for Visual Animal Tracking , 2018, ArXiv.

[24]  I. Couzin,et al.  Inferring the structure and dynamics of interactions in schooling fish , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  J. Herbert-Read Understanding how animal groups achieve coordinated movement , 2016, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[26]  I. Couzin,et al.  Self-Organization and Collective Behavior in Vertebrates , 2003 .

[27]  David J. T. Sumpter,et al.  Using activity and sociability to characterize collective motion , 2018, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[28]  Edoardo Datteri,et al.  Interactive biorobotics , 2020, Synthese.

[29]  Pawel Romanczuk,et al.  RoboFish: increased acceptance of interactive robotic fish with realistic eyes and natural motion patterns by live Trinidadian guppies , 2016, Bioinspiration & biomimetics.