A model of the visual localization of prey by frog and toad

In this paper we demonstrate how prey localization can be acheived rapidly and accurately by coupling prey-selection and lens-accommodation processes within a feedback loop. Information derived from prey selection supplies a setpoint for accomodation. In turn, adjustment of the lens modifies the visual input and can alter the prey selection process. The natural feedback of this goal-seeking system automatically corrects for the problem of ambiguity in binocular matching.Although it is of general interest as a depth algorithm, we tie the model to the known anatomy, physiology and behavior of frogs and toads. Instead of building a global depth-map we propose that the goal of catching a prey leads a frog or toad to select a particular region of its visual world for special scrutiny. We suggest that the first step of the prey-catching sequence is to adjust the accommodative state of the lenses and thus lock the visual apparatus on to a stimulus. We identify brain regions that could provide the neural substrates necessary to support the model's various functional stages and present experiments, with a computer simulation, that compare its functioning to animal behavior.

[1]  M. Arbib,et al.  A neural model of interactions subserving prey-predator discrimination and size preference in anuran amphibia. , 1985, Journal of theoretical biology.

[2]  O. Grüsser,et al.  Neurophysiology of the Anuran Visual System , 1976 .

[3]  M. Raybourn.  Spatial and temporal organization of the binocular input to frog optic tectum. , 1975, Brain, behavior and evolution.

[4]  M. Jordan,et al.  The Role o f Eye Accommodation in the Depth Perception of Common Toads , 1980, Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung. Section C, Biosciences.

[5]  W. Pitts,et al.  What the Frog's Eye Tells the Frog's Brain , 1959, Proceedings of the IRE.

[6]  David Ingle,et al.  The nucleus isthmus as a relay station in the ipsilateral visual projection to the frog's optic tectum , 1978, Brain Research.

[7]  W. Pitts,et al.  How we know universals; the perception of auditory and visual forms. , 1947, The Bulletin of mathematical biophysics.

[8]  D. Ingle,et al.  Visuomotor functions of the frog optic tectum. , 1970, Brain, behavior and evolution.

[9]  D. Lawton.  Processing dynamic image sequences from a moving sensor , 1984 .

[10]  S. Udin,et al.  Topographic projections between the nucleus isthmi and the tectum of the frog rana pipiens , 1978, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[11]  J. Ewert.  Advances in vertebrate neuroethology , 1982, Trends in Neurosciences.

[12]  A. Holden.  Competition and cooperation in neural nets , 1983 .

[13]  John F. Kalaska,et al.  Spatial coding of movement: A hypothesis concerning the coding of movement direction by motor cortical populations , 1983 .

[14]  Samuel Rossel,et al.  Foveal fixation and tracking in the praying mantis , 1980, Journal of comparative physiology.

[15]  J. Lettvin,et al.  Anatomy and physiology of a binocular system in the frograna pipiens , 1980, Brain Research.

[16]  T. Collett.  Stereopsis in toads , 1977, Nature.

[17]  P. Grobstein,et al.  The nucleus isthmi as an intertectal relay for the ipsilateral oculotectal projection in the frog, Rana pipiens , 1983, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[18]  J. Krol,et al.  The Double-Nail Illusion: Experiments on Binocular Vision with Nails, Needles, and Pins , 1980, Perception.

[19]  D A Robinson,et al.  The use of control systems analysis in the neurophysiology of eye movements. , 1981, Annual review of neuroscience.

[20]  Steven M. Archer,et al.  A crossed isthmo-tectal projection inRana pipiens and its involvement in the ipsilateral visuotectal projection , 1978, Brain Research.

[21]  D. House.  Neural models of depth perception in frogs and toads , 1984 .

[22]  P. Grobstein,et al.  The potential binocular field and its tectal representation in rana pipiens , 1980, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[23]  W von Seelen,et al.  [Neurobiology and system theory of a visual pattern recognition mechanism in the toad]. , 1973, Kybernetik.

[24]  R. Didday.  A model of visuomotor mechanisms in the frog optic tectum , 1976 .

[25]  D. Ingle.  Brain Mechanisms of Visual Localization by Frogs and Toads , 1983 .

[26]  J. Ewert.  5 – The Visual System of the Toad: Behavioral and Physiological Studies on a Pattern Recognition System , 1976 .

[27]  K. Fite,et al.  3 – Central Visual Pathways In The Frog , 1976 .

[28]  M. Arbib,et al.  A neural model of the interaction of tectal columns in prey-catching behavior , 1982, Biological Cybernetics.

[29]  S. Amari,et al.  Competition and Cooperation in Neural Nets , 1982 .

[30]  J. Mcilwain.  Lateral spread of neural excitation during microstimulation in intermediate gray layer of cat's superior colliculus. , 1982, Journal of neurophysiology.

[31]  K. Fite,et al.  Single-unit analysis of binocular neurons in the frog optic tectum. , 1969, Experimental neurology.

[32]  Christopher Comer,et al.  Frog Prey Capture Behavior: Between Sensory Maps and Directed Motor Output , 1983 .

[33]  D. Ingle.  4 – Spatial Vision in Anurans , 1976 .

[34]  M. Arbib,et al.  The role of the tectal column in facilitation of amphibian prey- catching behavior: a neural model , 1982, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.