Prey-catching and predator avoidance 2: modeling the medullary hemifield deficit

We provide a biological and behavioral analysis of our schema-theoretic model of prey-catching and predator-avoidance. Based on lesion data, our model is structured on the principles of segregation of coordinate systems and participation of maps intermediate between sensory and motor schemas: The motor schemas are driven by specific internal maps which between them constitute a distributed internal representation of the world. These maps collectively provide the transition from topographically-coded sensory information to frequency-coded inputs to the diverse motor schemas that drive muscle activity. We simulate data on approach and avoidance behavior of the frog or toad under normal conditions and under lesion of different brain centers. The model postulates the construction of motor actions through the interaction of different motor schemas via a process of competition and cooperation wherein there is no need for a unique schema to win the competition (although that might well be the result) since two or more schemas may simultaneously be active and cooperate to yield a more complicated motor pattern. The model generates different motor zones for prey-catching behavior which match those observed experimentally in normal conditions and in the medullary hemifield deficit, and offers predictions for new experiments on both approach and avoidance behaviors.

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

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

[3]  D. Ingle Behavioral Correlates of Central Visual Function in Anurans , 1976 .

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

[5]  D. Ingle Detection of stationary objects by frogs (Rana pipiens) after ablation of optic tectum. , 1977, Journal of comparative and physiological psychology.

[6]  Paul Grobstein,et al.  Visual orienting deficits in frogs with various unilateral lesions , 1982, Behavioural Brain Research.

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

[8]  H. Vanegas,et al.  Comparative neurology of the optic tectum , 1984 .

[9]  J. Ewert Tectal Mechanisms That Underlie Prey-Catching and Avoidance Behaviors in Toads , 1984 .

[10]  R Lara,et al.  A global model of the neural mechanisms responsible for visuomotor coordination in toads. , 1984, Journal of theoretical biology.

[11]  P. Grobstein,et al.  Neuronal organization underlying visually elicited prey orienting in the frog—I. Effects of various unilateral lesions , 1987, Neuroscience.

[12]  P. Grobstein Between the retinotectal projection and directed movement: topography of a sensorimotor interface. , 1988, Brain, behavior and evolution.

[13]  D. Ingle,et al.  Visually Elicited Evasive Behavior in FrogsGiving memory research an ethological context , 1990 .

[14]  Michael A. Arbib,et al.  Depth and detours: an essay on visually guided behavior , 1990 .