Visual Sensory Signals Dominate Tactile Cues during Docked Feeding in Hummingbirds

Animals living in and interacting with natural environments must monitor and respond to changing conditions and unpredictable situations. Using information from multiple sensory systems allows them to modify their behavior in response to their dynamic environment but also creates the challenge of integrating different, and potentially contradictory, sources of information for behavior control. Understanding how multiple information streams are integrated to produce flexible and reliable behavior is key to understanding how behavior is controlled in natural settings. Natural settings are rarely still, which challenges animals that require precise body position control, like hummingbirds, which hover while feeding from flowers. Tactile feedback, available only once the hummingbird is docked at the flower, could provide additional information to help maintain its position at the flower. To investigate the role of tactile information for hovering control during feeding, we first asked whether hummingbirds physically interact with a feeder once docked. We quantified physical interactions between docked hummingbirds and a feeder placed in front of a stationary background pattern. Force sensors on the feeder measured a complex time course of loading that reflects the wingbeat frequency and bill movement of feeding hummingbirds, and suggests that they sometimes push against the feeder with their bill. Next, we asked whether the measured tactile interactions were used by feeding hummingbirds to maintain position relative to the feeder. We created two experimental scenarios—one in which the feeder was stationary and the visual background moved and the other where the feeder moved laterally in front of a white background. When the visual background pattern moved, docked hummingbirds pushed significantly harder in the direction of horizontal visual motion. When the feeder moved, and the background was stationary, hummingbirds generated aerodynamic force in the opposite direction of the feeder motion. These results suggest that docked hummingbirds are using visual information about the environment to maintain body position and orientation, and not actively tracking the motion of the feeder. The absence of flower tracking behavior in hummingbirds contrasts with the behavior of hawkmoths, and provides evidence that they rely primarily on the visual background rather than flower-based cues while feeding.

[1]  Douglas L. Altshuler,et al.  Neurons Responsive to Global Visual Motion Have Unique Tuning Properties in Hummingbirds , 2017, Current Biology.

[2]  R. Kern,et al.  Visual position stabilization in the hummingbird hawk moth, Macroglossum stellatarum L. II. Electrophysiological analysis of neurons sensitive to wide-field image motion , 1998, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[3]  E. Shaw,et al.  The optomotor reaction of schooling carangid fishes. , 1965, Animal behaviour.

[4]  K. Middleton,et al.  Hummingbirds control turning velocity using body orientation and turning radius using asymmetrical wingbeat kinematics , 2016, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[5]  S. N. Fry,et al.  The Aerodynamics of Free-Flight Maneuvers in Drosophila , 2003, Science.

[6]  T. Weis-Fogh Quick estimates of flight fitness in hovering animals , 1973 .

[7]  Simon Sponberg,et al.  Comparative system identification of flower tracking performance in three hawkmoth species reveals adaptations for dim light vision , 2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[8]  D. R. Wylie,et al.  Comparative Morphology of the Avian Cerebellum: II. Size of Folia , 2006, Brain, Behavior and Evolution.

[9]  D G Pelli,et al.  Pixel independence: measuring spatial interactions on a CRT display. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[10]  Kathleen S Rockland,et al.  Multisensory convergence in calcarine visual areas in macaque monkey. , 2003, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[11]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[12]  C. J. Clark,et al.  The Displays and Sonations of the Black-Chinned Hummingbird (Trochilidae: Archilochus alexandri) , 2010 .

[13]  Benjamin Goller,et al.  Hummingbirds control hovering flight by stabilizing visual motion , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  J. Lackner,et al.  Stabilization of posture by precision contact of the index finger. , 1994, Journal of vestibular research : equilibrium & orientation.

[15]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[16]  Peter Agada,et al.  Dynamic Reweighting of Three Modalities for Sensor Fusion , 2014, PloS one.

[17]  Tim Kiemel,et al.  Multisensory information for human postural control: integrating touch and vision , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

[18]  R. Dudley,et al.  Backward flight in hummingbirds employs unique kinematic adjustments and entails low metabolic cost , 2012, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[19]  R. Hetherington The Perception of the Visual World , 1952 .

[20]  D. R. Wylie,et al.  Comparative Morphology of the Avian Cerebellum: I. Degree of Foliation , 2006, Brain, Behavior and Evolution.

[21]  Roslyn Dakin,et al.  Visual guidance of forward flight in hummingbirds reveals control based on image features instead of pattern velocity , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[22]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[23]  C. Marsden,et al.  Human postural responses. , 1981, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[24]  Robert Dudley,et al.  The ecological and evolutionary interface of hummingbird flight physiology. , 2002, The Journal of experimental biology.

[25]  M. Dickinson,et al.  Wing rotation and the aerodynamic basis of insect flight. , 1999, Science.

[26]  W. Junger,et al.  Response to self-motion in waterstriders: visual discrimination between rotation and translation , 1991, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[27]  H. Kennedy,et al.  Anatomical Evidence of Multimodal Integration in Primate Striate Cortex , 2002, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[28]  C. J. Clark,et al.  Hovering and Forward Flight Energetics in Anna's and Allen's Hummingbirds , 2010, Physiological and Biochemical Zoology.

[29]  J. Zeil,et al.  Tetragonisca guard bees interpret expanding and contracting patterns as unintended displacement in space , 1997, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[30]  Tyson L Hedrick,et al.  Software techniques for two- and three-dimensional kinematic measurements of biological and biomimetic systems , 2008, Bioinspiration & biomimetics.

[31]  C. Pennycuick Power requirements for horizontal flight in the pigeon Columba livia , 1968 .

[32]  B. Tobalske,et al.  Aerodynamics of the hovering hummingbird , 2005, Nature.

[33]  Patrick Haggard,et al.  Vision Modulates Somatosensory Cortical Processing , 2002, Current Biology.

[34]  R. Bomphrey,et al.  Span efficiency in hawkmoths , 2013, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[35]  D. Varjú,et al.  Visual position stabilization in the hummingbird hawk moth, Macroglossum stellatarum L. I. Behavioural analysis , 1998, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[36]  A. Biewener,et al.  Hummingbird flight stability and control in freestream turbulent winds , 2015, The Journal of Experimental Biology.

[37]  T. Hothorn,et al.  Simultaneous Inference in General Parametric Models , 2008, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[38]  S. N. Fry,et al.  The aerodynamics of hovering flight in Drosophila , 2005, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[39]  Kevin M Middleton,et al.  Wingbeat kinematics and motor control of yaw turns in Anna's hummingbirds (Calypte anna) , 2012, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[40]  Jan W. Kruyt,et al.  Hummingbird wing efficacy depends on aspect ratio and compares with helicopter rotors , 2014, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[41]  Denis G. Pelli,et al.  ECVP '07 Abstracts , 2007, Perception.

[42]  Emmanuel Cid,et al.  Wave patterns generated by an axisymmetric obstacle in a two-layer flow , 2013 .

[43]  Andrew A Biewener,et al.  Optic flow stabilizes flight in ruby-throated hummingbirds , 2016, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[44]  D. Altshuler,et al.  Hummingbirds generate bilateral vortex loops during hovering: evidence from flow visualization , 2012 .

[45]  J. Lackner,et al.  Fingertip contact influences human postural control , 2007, Experimental Brain Research.

[46]  D. R. Wylie,et al.  Neural specialization for hovering in hummingbirds: Hypertrophy of the pretectal nucleus lentiformis mesencephali , 2007, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[47]  T. Kiemel,et al.  Asymmetric Sensory Reweighting in Human Upright Stance , 2014, PloS one.

[48]  Jonathan P. Dyhr,et al.  Luminance-dependent visual processing enables moth flight in low light , 2015, Science.

[49]  Alejandro Rico-Guevara,et al.  The hummingbird tongue is a fluid trap, not a capillary tube , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[50]  David N. Lee,et al.  Visual proprioceptive control of standing in human infants , 1974 .

[51]  W. Kutsch,et al.  Time-correlated flights of juvenile and mature locusts: A comparison between free and tethered animals , 1981 .

[52]  D. Varjú,et al.  The regulation of distance to dummy flowers during hovering flight in the hawk moth Macroglossum stellatarum , 1994, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[53]  Kelvin S. Oie,et al.  Multisensory fusion: simultaneous re-weighting of vision and touch for the control of human posture. , 2002, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[54]  Ankoor S. Shah,et al.  Auditory Cortical Neurons Respond to Somatosensory Stimulation , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[55]  S. P. Roberts,et al.  Short-amplitude high-frequency wing strokes determine the aerodynamics of honeybee flight. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.