↓ Skip to main content

Flying fruit flies correct for visual sideslip depending on relative speed of forward optic flow

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, January 2013
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 (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Flying fruit flies correct for visual sideslip depending on relative speed of forward optic flow
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00076
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephanie Cabrera, Jamie C. Theobald

Abstract

As a fly flies through its environment, static objects produce moving images on its retina, and this optic flow is essential for steering and course corrections. Different types of rotation and translation produce unique flow fields, which fly brains are wired to identify. However, a feature of optic flow unique to translational motion is that adjacent images may move across the retina at different speeds, depending on their distance from the observer. Many insects take advantage of this depth cue, called motion parallax, to determine the distance to objects. We wanted to know if differential object speeds affect the corrective responses of fruit flies when they experience unplanned course deviations. We presented tethered flying flies with optic flow and measured their corrective responses to sideways perturbations of images with different relative forward speeds. We found that flying flies attend to the relative speed of dots during forward motion, and adjust their corrective responses to sideslip deviations depending on this cue. With no other distinguishing features (such as brightness or size), flies mounted a greater response to sideways deviations that were signaled by faster moving dots in the forward flow field, those that appeared radially closer by their speeds. This is consistent with the interpretation that fruit flies attend to seemingly nearer objects, and correct more strongly when they indicate a perturbation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Portugal 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 53 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 30%
Researcher 16 28%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Master 3 5%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 11 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 14%
Neuroscience 7 12%
Computer Science 5 9%
Psychology 5 9%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 12 21%
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 27 June 2013.
All research outputs
#3,006,039
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#535
of 3,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,246
of 284,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#34
of 165 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,276 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 284,930 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 165 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.