Article Figures & Tables
Figures
- Fig. 1.
The Elementary Motion Detector (EMD). The spatial input from two identical Gaussian filters separated by Δx is passed through high and low pass temporal filters (HP and LP, respectively). The LP output in each subunit is cross-correlated with the HP output from the other subunit using a multiplication stage (M) and the two products are then subtracted to produce a direction-sensitive measure of motion.
- Fig. 2.
Masked grating stimulus conditions used in Experiment H1. Each column represents one stimulus condition. Top row shows still frames of each condition, while middle and bottom rows show corresponding space-time plots and Fourier spatio-temporal amplitude spectra, respectively. In these plots, the signal contrast was set to 0.2. The cartoons at the top represent the conditions graphically and are used in subsequent figures for easy reference (signal is the upwards pointing arrow and noise is the coloured rectangle). The conditions are also labelled using the format Signal+Noise (S+N), where each of S and N is either H or L, indicating high and low spatial frequencies, respectively. For example, L+H indicates low frequency signal and high frequency noise.
- Fig. 3.
Human motion detection contrast thresholds for different combinations of signal and noise frequencies (measured in Experiment H1). Bars show mean contrast detection thresholds (n=4) and error bars show ±s.e. of the mean. Horizontal brackets indicate threshold pairs that differ significantly (paired t-test, *P≤0.05 and **P≤0.01). Results show that each of the two signals frequencies 0.4 (blue) and 2 cpd (green) was masked significantly higher by same-frequency noise compared to different-frequency noise. Stimuli icons (below bars) and labels (above bars) use the notation introduced in Fig. 2.
- Fig. 4.
Responses, fitted psychometric curves and detection thresholds of a single mantis (measured in Experiment M1). Circles show optomotor response rates (i.e. proportion of trials on which the mantis was coded as moving in the same direction as the signal grating) as a function of signal grating contrast. Error-bars are 95% confidence intervals calculated from simple binomial statistics. Red curves show fitted psychometric function (Eqn 4); red vertical lines mark contrast threshold. (A,C,E) Low-frequency signal (i.e. 0.04 cpd); (B,D,F) high-frequency signal (i.e. 0.2 cpd). Insets at the bottom right corner of each panel indicate signal and noise frequencies as in Fig. 2. (A,B) No noise: stimulus is a pure drifting luminance grating. (C,D) Low-frequency noise, i.e. added to the drifting signal grating is a grating of 0.04 cpd for which phase is updated randomly on every frame. (E,F) High-frequency noise. The data plotted in this figure are all from a single individual (mantis F11) and were measured in Experiment M1.
- Fig. 5.
Mantis motion detection contrast thresholds for different combinations of signal and noise frequencies (measured in Experiment M1). Bars show mean contrast detection thresholds (n=6) and error bars show ±s.e. of the mean. Horizontal brackets indicate threshold pairs that differ significantly (paired t-test, *P≤0.05 and **P≤0.01). Stimuli icons (below bars) and labels (above bars) use the notation introduced in Fig. 2. Results show that the 0.2 cpd signal was masked to similar degrees by noise at either frequency, while the 0.04 cpd signal was masked more strongly by the 0.04 cpd noise.
- Fig. 6.
Mantis motion detection contrast thresholds for different combinations of signal and noise frequencies (measured in Experiment M2). Bars show mean contrast detection thresholds (n=6) and error bars show ±s.e. of the mean. Horizontal brackets indicate threshold pairs that differ significantly (paired-sample t-test, *P≤0.05 and **P≤0.01). Stimuli icons (below bars) and labels (above bars) use the notation introduced in Fig. 2. The results show the same qualitative differences observed in Experiment M1 (Fig. 5): the 0.2 cpd signal is masked to similar degrees by noise at either frequency, while the 0.04 cpd signal is masked more strongly by 0.04 cpd noise. This similarity excludes the possibility that mantis and human results were different because stimuli appeared spatially distorted to mantises.
- Fig. 7.
The spatial contrast sensitivity function of mantis optomotor response. The spatial frequencies used for signal and noise in experiments M1/M2 (0.04 and 0.2 cpd) are indicated on the plot using green/blue vertical lines. Contrast sensitivity data points are from Nityananda et al. (2015) and were corrected to adopt the same notation for converting between pixels and visual degrees as in Experiment M1 [i.e. averaging over screen width, instead of a single spatial period as in Nityananda et al. (2015)].
- Fig. 8.
Masked grating stimulus conditions used in Experiment M2. Each column represents one stimulus condition. Top row shows still frames of each condition, while middle and bottom rows show corresponding space-time plots and Fourier spatio-temporal amplitude spectra, respectively. In these plots the signal contrast was set to 0.1. These stimuli conditions are similar to their correspondents in Experiment H1 (Fig. 2) but were modified in three ways: (1) they were limited to the central 85 degrees of the visual field, (2) they were corrected for spatial distortion by introducing a non-linear horizontal transformation, and (3) their noise was restricted to a single spatial frequency. Stimuli icons and labels (top row) use the notation introduced in Fig. 2.
Article Navigation
Related articles
Cited by...
More in this TOC section
Similar articles
Other journals from The Company of Biologists
Why publish with BiO?
Biology Open provides rapid publication for scientifically sound observations and valid conclusions in developmental, cell, experimental and translational biology. Submit your paper for an easy and fast publication process. Recent developmental biology highlights in in BiO include work by Teramoto et al., which looks at the change in epithelial characteristics in the anterior foregut in the absence of SOX2.
Hear from this month’s first authors: Setsuya Minami, Kate Quigley, Samantha Payne and Juan Garrido-Maraver talk about their papers and life as a researcher.
A study by Thomas Cansse and colleagues used bird-borne cameras on Australasian gannets in Bass Strait and found that animals foraging solitarily had lower levels of prey-capture success than animals foraging in groups. However, prey profitability was lower for group-foraging animals due to increased time expenditure to capture prey.