Closed-loop response properties of a visual interneuron involved in fly optomotor control

Due to methodological limitations neural function is mostly studied under open-loop conditions. Normally, however, nervous systems operate in closed-loop where sensory input is processed to generate behavioral outputs, which again change the sensory input. Here, we investigate the closed-loop responses of an identified visual interneuron, the blowfly H1-cell, that is part of a neural circuit involved in optomotor flight and gaze control. Those behaviors may be triggered by attitude changes during flight in turbulent air. The fly analyses the resulting retinal image shifts and performs compensatory body and head rotations to regain its default attitude. We developed a fly robot interface to study H1-cell responses in a 1 degree-of-freedom image stabilization task. Image shifts, induced by externally forced rotations, modulate the cell’s spike rate that controls counter rotations of a mobile robot to minimize relative motion between the robot and its visual surroundings. A feedback controller closed the loop between neural activity and the rotation of the robot. Under these conditions we found the following H1-cell response properties: (i) the peak spike rate decreases when the mean image velocity is increased, (ii) the relationship between spike rate and image velocity depends on the standard deviation of the image velocities suggesting adaptive scaling of the cell’s signaling range, and (iii) the cell’s gain decreases linearly with increasing image accelerations. Our results reveal a remarkable qualitative similarity between the response dynamics of the H1-cell under closed-loop conditions with those obtained in previous open-loop experiments. Finally, we show that the adaptive scaling of the H1-cell’s responses, while maximizing information on image velocity, decreases the cell’s sensitivity to image accelerations. Understanding such trade-offs in biological vision systems may advance the design of smart vision sensors for autonomous robots.

[1]  R. Wehner.  ‘Matched filters’ — neural models of the external world , 1987, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[2]  William Bialek,et al.  Adaptive Rescaling Maximizes Information Transmission , 2000, Neuron.

[3]  W P Chan,et al.  Visual input to the efferent control system of a fly's "gyroscope". , 1998, Science.

[4]  K. Hausen.  Functional Characterization and Anatomical Identification of Motion Sensitive Neurons in the Lobula plate of the Blowfly Calliphora erythrocephala , 1976 .

[5]  H. Nalbach,et al.  Visual stabilization in arthropods. , 1993, Reviews of oculomotor research.

[6]  Andrew M. Hyslop,et al.  Autonomous Navigation in Three-Dimensional Urban Environments Using Wide-Field Integration of Optic Flow , 2010 .

[7]  Mandyam V. Srinivasan,et al.  From biology to engineering: insect vision and applications to robotics , 2012 .

[8]  Rob R. de Ruyter van Steveninck,et al.  The metabolic cost of neural information , 1998, Nature Neuroscience.

[9]  A. Borst,et al.  Adaptation of response transients in fly motion vision. I: Experiments , 2003, Vision Research.

[10]  Holger G. Krapp,et al.  Closed-loop performance of a proportional controller for visual stabilization using a fly-robot interface , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics.

[11]  M. Egelhaaf,et al.  Optomotor course control in flies with largely asymmetric visual input , 2000, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[12]  K. Hausen.  Motion sensitive interneurons in the optomotor system of the fly , 1982, Biological Cybernetics.

[13]  A Borst,et al.  Recurrent Network Interactions Underlying Flow-Field Selectivity of Visual Interneurons , 2001, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[14]  James Sean Humbert,et al.  Control theoretic interpretation of directional motion preferences in optic flow processing interneurons , 2010, Biological Cybernetics.

[15]  Alexander Borst,et al.  Noise, Not Stimulus Entropy, Determines Neural Information Rate , 2004, Journal of Computational Neuroscience.

[16]  Nicolas Franceschini,et al.  Sampling of the Visual Environment by the Compound Eye of the Fly: Fundamentals and Applications , 1975 .

[17]  Karl Geokg Götz,et al.  Optomotorische Untersuchung des visuellen systems einiger Augenmutanten der Fruchtfliege Drosophila , 1964, Kybernetik.

[18]  H. Krapp.  1.06 – Central Processing of Visual Information in Insects , 2008 .

[19]  M. Dickinson,et al.  A linear systems analysis of the yaw dynamics of a dynamically scaled insect model , 2010, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[20]  R. Hengstenberg,et al.  Binocular contributions to optic flow processing in the fly visual system. , 2001, Journal of neurophysiology.

[21]  小林 直人,et al.  Wide-Field Integration of Optic Flowを用いた宇宙機の運動推定 , 2014 .

[22]  Karl Georg Götz,et al.  Flight control in Drosophila by visual perception of motion , 1968, Kybernetik.

[23]  M. Heisenberg,et al.  The sensory-motor link in motion-dependent flight control of flies. , 1993, Reviews of oculomotor research.

[24]  S. Laughlin.  Energy as a constraint on the coding and processing of sensory information , 2001, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[25]  K Hausen,et al.  Decoding of retinal image flow in insects. , 1993, Reviews of oculomotor research.

[26]  Martin Egelhaaf,et al.  INTRINSIC PROPERTIES OF BIOLOGICAL MOTION DETECTORS PREVENT THE OPTOMOTOR CONTROL SYSTEM FROM GETTING UNSTABLE , 1996 .

[27]  Zoubin Ghahramani,et al.  Computational principles of movement neuroscience , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[28]  Automatic gain control in movement detection of the fly , 1989, Naturwissenschaften.

[29]  Dario Floreano,et al.  Flying Insects and Robots , 2010 .

[30]  S. Laughlin,et al.  Adaptation of the motion-sensitive neuron H1 is generated locally and governed by contrast frequency , 1985, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[31]  R. Wolf,et al.  Visual control of straight flight in Drosophila melanogaster , 1990, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[32]  Werner Reichardt,et al.  Evaluation of optical motion information by movement detectors , 1987, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[33]  Mark T. Waters,et al.  This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits distribution,andreproductioninanymedium,providedtheoriginalauthorandsourcearecredited.Thislicensedoesnot permit commercial exploitation or the creation of derivative works without sp , 2009 .

[34]  Holger G. Krapp,et al.  An Experimental Platform to Study the Closed-loop Performance of Brain-machine Interfaces , 2011, Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE.

[35]  B. Webb.  Neural mechanisms for prediction: do insects have forward models? , 2004, Trends in Neurosciences.

[36]  Holger G. Krapp,et al.  Static versus Adaptive Gain Control Strategy for Visuo-motor Stabilization , 2012, Living Machines.

[37]  S. Laughlin.  Matching coding, circuits, cells, and molecules to signals: General principles of retinal design in the fly's eye , 1994, Progress in Retinal and Eye Research.

[38]  Adrienne L. Fairhall,et al.  Efficiency and ambiguity in an adaptive neural code , 2001, Nature.

[39]  Barbara Webb,et al.  Validating biorobotic models , 2006, Journal of neural engineering.

[40]  G D Lewen,et al.  Neural coding of naturalistic motion stimuli , 2001, Network.

[41]  H. Krapp,et al.  Sensory Systems and Flight Stability: What do Insects Measure and Why? , 2007 .

[42]  H. Sompolinsky,et al.  Adaptation without parameter change: Dynamic gain control in motion detection , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[43]  Mandyam V Srinivasan,et al.  Honeybees as a model for the study of visually guided flight, navigation, and biologically inspired robotics. , 2011, Physiological reviews.