↓ Skip to main content

Insects modify their behaviour depending on the feedback sensor used when walking on a trackball in virtual reality

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Experimental Biology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Insects modify their behaviour depending on the feedback sensor used when walking on a trackball in virtual reality
Published in
Journal of Experimental Biology, August 2015
DOI 10.1242/jeb.125617
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gavin J. Taylor, Angelique C. Paulk, Thomas W. J. Pearson, Richard J. D. Moore, Jacqui A. Stacey, David Ball, Bruno van Swinderen, Mandyam V. Srinivasan

Abstract

When using virtual-reality paradigms to study animal behaviour, careful attention must be paid to how the animal's actions are detected. This is particularly relevant in closed-loop experiments where the animal interacts with a stimulus. Many different sensor types have been used to measure aspects of behaviour, and although some sensors may be more accurate than others, few studies have examined whether, and how, such differences affect an animal's behaviour in a closed-loop experiment. To investigate this issue, we conducted experiments with tethered honeybees walking on an air-supported trackball and fixating a visual object in closed-loop. Bees walked faster and along straighter paths when the motion of the trackball was measured in the classical fashion - using optical motion sensors repurposed from computer mice - than when measured more accurately using a computer vision algorithm called 'FicTrac'. When computer mouse sensors are used to measure bees' behaviour, they modified their behaviour and achieved improved control of the stimulus. This behavioural change appears to be a response to a systematic error in the computer mouse sensor that reduces the sensitivity of this sensor system under certain conditions. Although the large perceived inertia and mass of the trackball relative to the honeybee is a limitation of tethered walking paradigms, observing differences depending on the sensor system used to measure bee behaviour was not expected. This study suggests that bees are capable of fine-tuning their motor control to improve the outcome of the task they are performing. Further, our findings show that caution is required when designing virtual-reality experiments, as animals can potentially respond to the artificial scenario in unexpected and unintended ways.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Unknown 78 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 30%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Master 6 7%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 12 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 27%
Neuroscience 22 27%
Engineering 8 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 14 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 August 2015.
All research outputs
#4,601,425
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Experimental Biology
#2,627
of 9,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,672
of 276,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Experimental Biology
#44
of 132 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,327 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,622 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 132 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.