Advertisement
Research Article
Saccadic movement strategy in a semiaquatic species – the harbour seal (Phoca vitulina)
Bart R. H. Geurten, Benedikt Niesterok, Guido Dehnhardt, Frederike D. Hanke
Journal of Experimental Biology 2017 220: 1503-1508; doi: 10.1242/jeb.150763

ABSTRACT

Moving animals can estimate the distance of visual objects from image shift on their retina (optic flow) created during translational, but not rotational movements. To facilitate this distance estimation, many terrestrial and flying animals perform saccadic movements, thereby temporally separating translational and rotational movements, keeping rotation times short. In this study, we analysed whether a semiaquatic mammal, the harbour seal, also adopts a saccadic movement strategy. We recorded the seals' normal swimming pattern with video cameras and analysed head and body movements. The swimming seals indeed minimized rotation times by saccadic head and body turns, with top rotation speeds exceeding 350 deg s−1 which leads to an increase of translational movements. Saccades occurred during both types of locomotion of the seals' intermittent swimming mode: active propulsion and gliding. In conclusion, harbour seals share the saccadic movement strategy of terrestrial animals. Whether this movement strategy is adopted to facilitate distance estimation from optic flow or serves a different function will be a topic of future research.

INTRODUCTION

Optic flow, the pattern of visual motion elicited on the retina of a moving observer (Gibson, 1950), has been shown to be involved in tasks including object avoidance, gap passing, goal-directed locomotion and navigation. The use of optic flow has been widely studied in terrestrial and aerial species (e.g. Baird et al., 2011; Bhagavatula et al., 2011; Britten and van Wezel, 1998, 2002; Gu et al., 2010; Krapp and Hengstenberg, 1996; Kress et al., 2015; Sherk and Fowler, 2000; Srinivasan et al., 1996). In contrast, the use of optic flow has only recently been considered in aquatic animals (Gläser et al., 2014; Scholtyssek et al., 2014), beyond fish optomotor studies (e.g. Neuhauss, 2003). The ability to perceive optic flow could provide aquatic animals, such as seals (Gläser et al., 2014), with valuable information, especially under turbid water conditions. Although particles in the water impair object detection and visual resolution in seals (Weiffen et al., 2006) or plunge-diving cormorants (Strod et al., 2004), the optic flow created by swimming through these particles could be exploited for distance information. Swimming through particle-rich water, but also swimming close to the water surface or the ground, generates optic flow information that could be analysed to extract information for underwater odometry, the guidance of locomotion or orientation.

In the first optic flow study involving a harbour seal (Gläser et al., 2014), the seal was presented with a 2D simulation of a linear forward movement through a dot cloud on an underwater projection screen, which is a classic paradigm also used for analysing optic flow perception in human and non-human primates (Britten, 2008; Warren, 2004). The seal very accurately indicated whether a cross superimposed on the flow field deviated from or matched the focus of expansion, the point from which the flow pattern seems to emanate and that corresponds to the seal's heading during a translational movement. The seal's performance was comparable to the performance of humans (Warren and Hannon, 1988; Warren et al., 1988) and monkeys (Britten and van Wezel, 1998, 2002; Gu et al., 2010).

In the present study, we analysed whether harbour seals use a saccadic movement strategy comparable to that of terrestrial species that either walk (Blaj and van Hateren, 2004; Geurten et al., 2014; Kress and Egelhaaf, 2014a,b; Ribak et al., 2009) or fly (Boeddeker et al., 2010; Collett and Land, 1975; Eckmeier et al., 2008; Geurten et al., 2010; Tammero and Dickinson, 2002; Van Hateren and Schilstra, 1999). This strategy compresses rotations into short burst-like movements, called saccades. Pure rotational optic flow does not contain any depth information (Koenderink, 1986; Koenderink and van Doorn, 1987). Therefore, it is generally a valid strategy to reduce rotation durations to enhance 3D information in the optic flow field. Stabilizing movements of the eyes would reduce the rotational component of the optic flow even further by shortening the rotation period. Fast body turns were previously observed in aquatic species such as fish (Easter et al., 1974; Easter and Nicola, 1997; Fernald, 1975, 1985); however, whether they are part of a saccadic movement strategy was not analysed. Just recently, a saccadic movement strategy has been documented for common cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis; Helmer et al., 2017). The presence of a saccadic movement strategy in seals might indicate an optimization of optic flow information, which is essential for a fast-moving harbour seal that needs to estimate distances to objects to safely navigate through the environment. There are many other beneficial effects of brief rotation periods, such as optical blur minimization, fixation of objects, stabilization of vestibular sensory organs, fast evasive manoeuvres or optimization of search patterns.

In general, aquatic animals show an intermittent locomotion pattern with phases of gliding and active propulsion. The interspersion of gliding phases reduces the costs of locomotion drastically, which is crucial for a breath-hold diver (Gleiss et al., 2010; Kramer and McLaughlin, 2001; Weihs, 1973; Williams, 2001; Williams et al., 2000). As intermittent swimming and saccadic movement strategies segregate locomotion into distinct phases, their interconnection was additionally analysed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Subjects

Nine harbour seals (Phoca vitulina Linnaeus 1758) served as experimental subjects. They were housed in seawater enclosures, netpockets made out of black net with a mesh size of 5×5 cm that are attached to black floating elements and directly inserted into the Baltic Sea, at the Marine Science Center Rostock, Germany. The experiments were carried out in accordance with the European Communities Council Directive of 24 November 1986 (86/609/EEC). According to Section 8 of the German Animal Welfare Act of 18 May 2006 (BGB I. I S. 1206, 1313), we did not need approval or notification for experiments conducted in this study as they did not cause pain, suffering or injury to the animals.

Filming and analysis of swimming behaviour

Harbour seals were filmed with a hand-held digital video camera (30 Hz, Sony HDR-CX116, Sony Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). To minimize camera movements, only video sequences with a stable camera were used. Therefore, we analysed image movements by image registration algorithms with subpixel acuity (Guizar-Sicairos et al., 2008). The maximal image movement from frame to frame was 0.6%, whereas the cumulative sum of image movement of a whole sequence was 2.1% on average. The seals were filmed swimming within two enclosures. In the large enclosure (60 m×30 m×1.5–6 m), the camera was not fixed in position, and the camera axis was slightly tilted towards the water surface. This allowed for detailed analysis of the body orientation of the animals, but it should be noted that we could not record depth or roll information. Additionally, a careful analysis of head movements or translational velocities was impossible. In order to achieve better spatial resolution and to address these additional aspects of our analysis, harbour seals' movements were also recorded in a small enclosure (6 m×3 m×1 m) with a fixed video camera (15 Hz, B&S XC229SR) perpendicular to the water surface. The quality of these recordings allowed an analysis of head and body movements. Position and orientation of the seals' bodies and heads were obtained manually by marking the centre of mass of the body and head using ivTrace Image Analysis (https://opensource.cit-ec.de/projects/ivtools). The position and orientation information obtained for each single frame was further analysed in Matlab (The MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA). The peak velocities of saccades were detected using a speed threshold of 80 deg s−1, which was empirically determined. The start and end of a saccade were determined by searching for an inflection point in the velocity–time curve or when the yaw velocity reached 0 deg s−1. We calculated triggered averages of the saccades using their peak velocity as a trigger. The angle between body long axis and movement direction (ψ) was calculated as in Collet and Land (1975) and Geurten et al. (2010).

We also analysed the occurrence of saccades during the two modes of intermittent swimming: active propulsion and gliding. If the seals were moving their hind-flippers, the seal was said to be engaged in active propulsion. In contrast, gliding phases were characterized by an absence of hind-flipper movements.

Statistical analysis was done using Fisher's exact permutation test and a t-test in Matlab. P-values were corrected with Benjamini–Hochberg's false discovery rate correction, if needed.

RESULTS

More than 5 h of video material from seals swimming freely in the large and small enclosure were collected. Through manual tracking and subsequent analysis, it became apparent that the seals performed saccadic body movements (Fig. 1). Their movement pattern could be split into two major categories: short saccades during which the body rotates and long periods of translational movements in between the saccades. All in all, 136 body saccades defined by rotation velocities of more than 80 deg s−1 were detected. Subthreshold rotations were analysed in respect to their direction and duration. They do not represent prolonged bank turns as their duration was 320±120 ms. Furthermore, their direction was continuously alternating, which indicates that these subthreshold rotations were probably residual effects of the undulation of the body or digitization noise. The saccade threshold is in line with the harbour seal eye responding to stimulus velocities exceeding 80 deg s−1 with only very low gain during optokinetic stimulation (Hanke et al., 2008). A saccade was completed within 412±40 ms on average, with the duration of single saccades varying between 200 and 900 ms (Fig. 2A). During a body saccade, the body reached rotation velocities between 96.4 and 388.7 deg s−1 with an average velocity of 138.2±11.2 deg s−1 (median±95% confidence interval; Fig. 2B) and a mean rotation angle of up to 30 deg (Fig. 2C). During free swimming, the seals were predominantly gliding (64%); however, saccades occurred irrespective of the mode of locomotion (P>0.05, Kruskal–Wallis; Fig. S1). In contrast, prolonged banked body turns (Fig. S2) were observed when a blindfolded seal followed the hydrodynamic trail left behind by a remote-controlled submarine (Dehnhardt et al., 2001; Schulte-Pelkum et al., 2007; Wieskotten et al., 2010). Thus, generally, seals can perform banked body turns; however, they do not perform these smooth rotations during free swimming but instead move in a saccadic fashion.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

Swimming path of a harbour seal showing body saccades. Left: the dots indicate the trajectory of the centre of mass of the seal body over a period of 6 s during which the seal was swimming in the large enclosure on an S-shaped path from the top to the centre of the field of view of the camera. Line segments indicate the yaw orientation of the body every 33 ms. The white arrows mark two body saccades, the first to the right and the second to the left of the seal body. Right: the rotation angle (top) and the rotation velocity (bottom) as a function of time for the movement of the seal depicted on the left. Rotations refer to yaw body rotations. Saccades (shaded in grey) are characterized as brief intervals during which the body drastically changes its orientation with high rotation velocities. In between the saccades, the seal showed almost constant body orientation.

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Characterization of the seals' body movements. (A) The frequency of saccades of a specific duration (in bins of 100 ms), plotted as percentage of the total number of saccades (N=136). The majority of the saccades were completed within 400–500 ms. (B) Average rotation velocity and (C) average rotation angle during saccades (N=136). The solid line marks the median velocity (B) or angle (C), whereas the shaded area denotes its 95% confidence interval. Saccades to the right and left were similar and were thus pooled by mirroring. During a saccade, the seal body reached a mean rotation velocity of 138.2 deg s−1 and covered a mean rotation angle of up to 30 deg. Rotations refer to yaw body rotations.

To analyse head and body movements, we had to increase the spatial resolution of the scenery and, therefore, had to film the seals in a smaller enclosure. Here, the seals’ rotational speeds were reduced by 27% in comparison to their swimming behaviour in the large enclosure. We observed a similar trend in translational velocities, which is probably due to the limited amount of space they had to accelerate in. Analysing head and body movements revealed that the seals are able to move their heads and bodies independently, and the respective movement patterns of both are saccadic. During 150 body and head saccades, the head reached its peak velocity on average 733 ms before the body's point of peak velocity (Fig. 3A). The time difference between the peak yaw velocity of the head and body saccades showed that in 80% of cases the head movement precedes movement of the body (Fig. 3B). While the body was still rotating, the head showed a counter-rotation, which ultimately stabilizes head orientation. Head saccades were found to be approximately 200 ms shorter than body saccades (P<0.01, Fisher's exact permutation test), and saccades of both head and body were significantly shorter than translational movements (P<0.01, Fisher's exact permutation test; Fig. 3C). Additionally, head saccades reached higher peak rotation velocities than body saccades (P<0.05, Fisher's exact permutation test; Fig. 3D). Rotation velocities of the head amounted to 80.6–196.7 deg s−1 or 100.9±3.2 deg s−1 on average, whereas rotation velocities of 30.5–134.8 deg s−1 with an average of 51.1±7.4 deg s−1 were obtained for the body. During translational bouts, the head was more stabilized against residual rotation than the body. On average, the residual body yaw velocity was 15±3.8 deg s−1 whereas the head moved at a slower yaw velocity of 9.6±0.6 deg s−1 (P<0.001, Fisher's exact permutation test). Although the angle between head and body (ψ) occasionally exceeded 100 deg, the orientation of the head and body only differed by approximately 10 deg during the intersaccadic interval, probably as a result of the undulatory swimming mode (Fig. 4). We calculated the cross-correlation of head and body yaw and normalized the coefficient to the autocorrelation (Fig. S3). This revealed that the angular velocities of the head and body were highly correlated and that the body followed the head with a lag of 600 ms, which is consistent with the timing difference in peak velocity during saccades. In conclusion, seals perform body saccades, which are accommodated by head saccades, thus massively reducing the time spent in rotations.

Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

Characterization of the seals' head and body movements. (A) Average rotation velocity of the head (black line) and body (white line) during saccadic movements as a function of time based on 150 head and body saccades. The head moves on average 733±95.3 ms before the body and reaches a higher rotation velocity. (B) Frequency with which a specific time difference value between the peak yaw velocity of the head and body saccade occurs as a function of total events. In most instances, the head moved faster than the body (grey bars; P>0.01, t-test) and only rarely the body moved faster than the head (white bars). (C) Boxplots for the duration (logarithmic scale) of translational bouts, and body and head saccades. The median is shown as the central horizontal line. Boxes indicate the 25% and 74% quantile. The notches inside the boxes denote the 95% confidence interval of the median. Non-overlaying notches indicate that the median of two datasets is significantly different. The whiskers show 1.5 times the interquartile range; crosses are outliers. Translations are significantly longer events than body and head saccades, and head saccades are the fastest events (P<0.01, Fisher's exact permutation test). (D) Boxplots for the peak rotation velocity for body and head saccades. Conventions as in C. During head saccades, higher peak rotation velocities are reached in comparison to those during body saccades (P<0.05, Fisher's exact permutation test). Rotations refer to yaw body rotations.

Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.

Head/body coordination. Frequency depicted as percentage of total frames during translations (N=31,833) in which a specific angle between the animal's heading and its body long axis (ψ) occurred. If the body and heading are aligned, the angle is 0 deg, whereas angles are negative when the animal is looking to the left of its heading and angles are positive when it is looking to the right of its heading. In most instances, the seal’s swimming direction and body were aligned within 30 deg to each side.

DISCUSSION

We have presented evidence that a mammal, the semiaquatic harbour seal, shows saccadic head and body movements. In our study, head and body movements of the seals were analysed as a first approximation for gaze movements (see Eckmeier et al., 2008; Kress and Egelhaaf, 2012; Kress and Egelhaaf, 2014b) because eye movements could not be resolved in our video recordings. Seals have mobile eyes (Hanke et al., 2006; Hanke et al., 2008), so saccadic eye movements might add to the saccadic head and body shifts, as was reported for goldfish (Easter et al., 1974) and cichlid fish (Fernald, 1975, 1985). Taking those active eye movements into account, it would be possible to extract 3D information even during mild rotations, e.g. during subthreshold rotations. It is, however, unlikely that the seal is actively prolonging the saccade duration by extra rotations of the eye, but this study cannot exclude this possibility. The analysis of eye movements in free-swimming seals will be a topic of future research.

Saccades in seals were of low rotation velocity, almost 14 times slower than the fastest body saccades documented so far, which are performed by fruit flies during escape (Muijres et al., 2014). However, in this context, it is remarkable that seals are able to perform body saccades in the first place as (1) they possess very large and heavy bodies, and (2) water is more dense and viscous than air. For birds with much smaller bodies flying through air, it has been speculated that the high inertia of their bodies explains the absence of saccadic body turns (Eckmeier et al., 2008). An additional factor that was suggested to explain the bird's inability to perform body saccades is their high flight velocity (see e.g. Eckmeier et al., 2008), which is much higher than the flight velocities reached by insects. In contrast, harbour seals typically swim at a velocity of 2 m s−1 (e.g. Bodson et al., 2006), thus they move at an intermediate speed to birds, at the upper end, and insects, at the lower end. The seals' moderate velocity of movement might make body saccades possible in the first place. In common cuttlefish, saccades are performed depending on the type and, thus, also depending on the speed of movement; if they are swimming at high velocity propelled by their siphons, they abolish saccadic movements (Helmer et al., 2017).

In seals, head saccades reach higher velocities and are shorter than the corresponding body saccades. This pattern has also been found in walking and flying species (e.g. Blaj and van Hateren, 2004). The fact that the head rotates faster is easily explained by (1) the head being much lighter than the body, and thus less force has to be overcome, and (2) the head saccade being performed together with the body saccade. As their heads are able to turn faster than their bodies, seals can further reduce the rotation time. Compensating eye rotations would reduce the rotational duration even further and are likely to occur. Furthermore, it is also highly possible that the eyes rotate to fixate to new objects of interest. However, unfortunately, our data do not encompass eye movements, which must be the subject of future studies.

The head saccades of seals also start earlier than the body saccades; the body begins to rotate when the head reaches its peak velocity (P<0.01, t-test). This pattern contrasts with what has previously been documented for insects, for which either head and body saccades start at the same time (Blaj and van Hateren, 2004), are aligned by their peak in rotation velocity (Blaj and van Hateren, 2004; Geurten et al., 2014) and end at the same time (Geurten et al., 2010) or the body saccade starts earlier and ends later than the corresponding head saccade (Boeddeker et al., 2015; Schilstra and van Hateren, 1998). As in walking insects (Blaj and van Hateren, 2004), the mechanical destabilization of the body induced by an earlier initiation of the saccade of the head in comparison to the body and a corresponding counter-yaw of the body might be minimal in swimming animals.

The presence of saccadic movements in harbour seals, together with the dataset obtained in common cuttlefish (Helmer et al., 2017), seems to corroborate the idea that this movement strategy is universal in the animal kingdom (Eckmeier et al., 2008). A saccadic movement strategy has now been documented in invertebrates and vertebrates, terrestrial and aquatic, irrespective of eye type and type of locomotion. Regarding the type of locomotion, we can add that, in seals, saccades occur regardless of the mode of forward swimming, be it active propulsion or gliding. It needs to be stressed that the seals' saccadic movement strategy does not ultimately result from an inability of seals to perform banked turns. In contrast, seals move in banked turns under specific circumstances such as when following a hydrodynamic trail blindfolded.

There are various reasons why seals could perform fast rotational movements of the head and body (Boeddeker and Egelhaaf, 2005; Haselsteiner et al., 2014; Wagner, 1986). One explanation is that seals adopt a saccadic movement strategy to optimize the output from optic flow to gain distance information. A link between a saccadic movement strategy and distance estimation from optic flow has already been shown for numerous species (e.g. Eckmeier et al., 2008; Geurten et al., 2012; Kern et al., 2006; Tammero and Dickinson, 2002; van Hateren, 2005). If such a link is indeed revealed in future studies in seals, common cuttlefish (Helmer et al., 2017) and other (semi)aquatic animals, it would show that aquatic animals separate rotational from translational optic flow, complicated by optic flow being reduced to nearby regions underwater (Gläser et al., 2014; Koenderink and van Doorn, 1987; Lappe et al., 1999), in a comparable manner to terrestrial species, by reducing rotations to a minimum in the first place. Then, saccadic shifts would be a general solution to reduce the interference of rotational optic flow with visual perception. At the same time, the prolonged periods during which the animals perceive translational optic flow could enable distances to be estimated from optic flow as a vital outcome of visual scene analysis. Although seals also have the ability of stereopsis and might get 3D information for nearby objects via stereotriangulation, short rotations prove beneficial for other reasons as well: seals might be driven by rapid prey movement or during evasive behaviours to perform fast rotational movements of the head and body. Moreover, motion blur is reduced by fast rotations and vestibular sensation might be less influenced by a reduction of rotations.

In conclusion, harbour seals invest in a saccadic movement strategy. By moving their heads and bodies saccadically, comparable to the actions of many other species, they have the potential to use distance/depth information from the interpretation of the optic flow field mainly during translational phases, which will be addressed in future studies.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Luisa Hofberger and Verena Klüver, University of Göttingen, for assistance during data collection, and Martin C. Göpfert, University of Göttingen, for financial support and fruitful discussions.

FOOTNOTES

  • Competing interests

    The authors declare no competing or financial interests.

  • Author contributions

    All authors designed the study, B.R.H.G., B.N. and F.D.H. recorded the videos, B.R.H.G. and F.D.H. analysed the data, B.R.H.G. and F.D.H. wrote the manuscript, all authors edited the manuscript and gave final approval for publication.

  • Funding

    This work was financially supported by a grant from the Volkswagen Foundation to G.D.

  • Data availability

    The data can be downloaded from http://cellneuro.uni-goettingen.de/downloads/sealsRawData.zip

  • Supplementary information

    Supplementary information available online at http://jeb.biologists.org/lookup/doi/10.1242/jeb.150763.supplemental

  • Received September 30, 2016.
  • Accepted January 31, 2017.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Baird, E.,
    2. Kreiss, E.,
    3. Wcislo, W.,
    4. Warrant, E. and
    5. Dacke, M.
    (2011). Nocturnal insects use optic flow for flight control. Biol. Lett. 7, 499-501. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2010.1205
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Bhagavatula, P. S.,
    2. Claudianos, C.,
    3. Ibbotson, M. R. and
    4. Srinivasan, M. V.
    (2011). Optic flow cues guide flight in birds. Curr. Biol. 21, 1794-1799. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2011.09.009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Blaj, G. and
    2. van Hateren, J. H.
    (2004). Saccadic head and thorax movements in freely walking blowflies. J. Comp. Physiol. A 190, 861-868. doi:10.1007/s00359-004-0541-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    1. Bodson, A.,
    2. Miersch, L.,
    3. Mauck, B. and
    4. Dehnhardt, G.
    (2006). Underwater auditory localization by a swimming harbor seal (Phoca vitulina). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120, 1550-1557. doi:10.1121/1.2221532
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Boeddeker, N. and
    2. Egelhaaf, M.
    (2005). A single control system for smooth and saccade-like pursuit in blowflies. J. Exp. Biol. 208, 1563-1572. doi:10.1242/jeb.01558
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Boeddeker, N.,
    2. Dittmar, L.,
    3. Stürzl, W. and
    4. Egelhaaf, M.
    (2010). The fine structure of honeybee head and body yaw movements in a homing task. Proc. R. Soc. B 277, 1899-1906. doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.2326
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Boeddeker, N.,
    2. Mertes, M.,
    3. Dittmar, L. and
    4. Egelhaaf, M.
    (2015). Bumblebee homing: the finestructure of head turning movements. PLoS ONE 10, e0135020. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0135020
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. ↵
    1. Britten, K. H.
    (2008). Mechanisms of self-motion perception. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 31, 389-410. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.112953
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. ↵
    1. Britten, K. H. and
    2. van Wezel, R. J. A.
    (1998). Electrical microstimulation of cortical area MST biases heading perception in monkeys. Nat. Neurosci. 1, 59-63. doi:10.1038/259
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. ↵
    1. Britten, K. H. and
    2. Van Wezel, R. J. A.
    (2002). Area MST and heading perception in macaque monkeys. Cereb. Cortex 12, 692-701. doi:10.1093/cercor/12.7.692
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Collett, T. S. and
    2. Land, M. F.
    (1975). Visual control of flight behaviour in the hoverfly, Syritta pipiens L. J. Comp. Physiol. A 99, 1-66. doi:10.1007/BF01464710
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. ↵
    1. Dehnhardt, G.,
    2. Mauck, B.,
    3. Hanke, W. and
    4. Bleckmann, H.
    (2001). Hydrodynamic trail-following in harbor seals (Phoca vitulina). Science 293, 102-104. doi:10.1126/science.1060514
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Easter, S. S. and
    2. Nicola, G. N.
    (1997). The evelopment of eye movements in the zebrafish (Danio rerio). Dev. Psychobiol. 31, 267-276. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2302(199712)31:4<267::AID-DEV4>3.0.CO;2-P
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    1. Easter, S. S.,
    2. Johns, P. R. and
    3. Heckenlively, D.
    (1974). Horizontal compensatory eye movements in goldfish (Curassius auratus) I. The normal animal. J. Comp. Physiol. 92, 23-35. doi:10.1007/BF00696524
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. ↵
    1. Eckmeier, D.,
    2. Geurten, B. R. H.,
    3. Kress, D.,
    4. Mertes, M.,
    5. Kern, R.,
    6. Egelhaaf, M. and
    7. Bischof, H.-J.
    (2008). Gaze strategy in the free flying zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata). PLoS ONE 3, e9056. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003956
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. ↵
    1. Fernald, R. D.
    (1975). Fast body turns in a cichlid fish. Nature 258, 228-229. doi:10.1038/258228a0
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. ↵
    1. Fernald, R. D.
    (1985). Eye movements in the African cichlid fish, Haplochromis burtoni. J. Comp. Physiol. A 156, 199-208. doi:10.1007/BF00610862
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. ↵
    1. Geurten, B. R. H.,
    2. Kern, R.,
    3. Braun, E. and
    4. Egelhaaf, M.
    (2010). A syntax of hoverfly flight prototypes. J. Exp. Biol. 213, 2461-2475. doi:10.1242/jeb.036079
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Geurten, B. R. H.,
    2. Kern, R. and
    3. Egelhaaf, M.
    (2012). Species-specific flight styles of flies reflected in the response dynamics of a homolog motion-sensitive neuron. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 6, 11. doi:10.3389/fnint.2012.00011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Geurten, B. R. H.,
    2. Jähde, P.,
    3. Corthals, K. and
    4. Göpfert, M. C.
    (2014). Saccadic body turns in walking Drosophila. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 8, 365-374. doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00365
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. ↵
    1. Gibson, J. J.
    (1950). Perception of the Visual World. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  22. ↵
    1. Gläser, N.,
    2. Mauck, B.,
    3. Kandil, F. I.,
    4. Lappe, M.,
    5. Dehnhardt, G. and
    6. Hanke, F. D.
    (2014). Harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) can perceive optic flow underwater. PLoS ONE 9, e103555. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0103555
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. ↵
    1. Gleiss, A. C.,
    2. Jorgensen, S. J.,
    3. Liebsch, N.,
    4. Sala, J. E.,
    5. Norman, B.,
    6. Hays, G. C.,
    7. Quintana, F.,
    8. Grundy, E.,
    9. Campagna, C.,
    10. Trites, A. W. et al.
    (2010). Convergent evolution in locomotory patterns of flying and swimming animals. Nat. Commun. 2, 352. doi:10.1038/ncomms1350
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Gu, Y.,
    2. Fetsch, C. R.,
    3. Adeyemo, B.,
    4. DeAngelia, G. C. and
    5. Angelaki, D. E.
    (2010). Decoding of MSTd Population activity accounts for variations in the precision of heading perception. Neuron 66, 596-609. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.04.026
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. ↵
    1. Guizar-Sicairos, M.,
    2. Thurman, S. T. and
    3. Fienup, J. R.
    (2008). Efficient subpixel image registration algorithms. Opt. Lett. 33, 156-158. doi:10.1364/OL.33.000156
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. ↵
    1. Hanke, W.,
    2. Römer, R. and
    3. Dehnhardt, G.
    (2006). Visual fields and eye movements in a harbor seal (Phoca vitulina). Vision Res. 46, 2804-2814. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2006.02.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Hanke, F. D.,
    2. Hanke, W.,
    3. Hoffmann, K.-P. and
    4. Dehnhardt, G.
    (2008). Optokinetic nystagmus in harbor seals (Phoca vitulina). Vision Res. 48, 304-315. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2007.11.012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Haselsteiner, A. F.,
    2. Gilbert, C. and
    3. Wang, Z. J.
    (2014). Tiger beetles pursue prey using a proportional control law with a delay of one half-stride. J. R. Soc. Interface 11, 20140216. doi:10.1098/rsif.2014.0216
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Helmer, D.,
    2. Geurten, B.,
    3. Dehnhardt, G. and
    4. Hanke, F. D.
    (2017). Saccadic movement strategy in common cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis). Front. Physiol. 7, 660. doi:10.3389/fphys.2016.00660
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. ↵
    1. Kern, R.,
    2. van Hateren, J. H. and
    3. Egelhaaf, M.
    (2006). Representation of behaviourally relevant information by blowfly motion-sensitive visual interneurons requires precise compensatory head movements. J. Exp. Biol. 209, 1251-1260. doi:10.1242/jeb.02127
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. Koenderink, J. J.
    (1986). Optic flow. Vision Res. 26, 161-180. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(86)90078-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. ↵
    1. Koenderink, J. J. and
    2. van Doorn, A. J.
    (1987). Facts on optic flow. Biol. Cybern. 56, 247-254. doi:10.1007/BF00365219
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  33. ↵
    1. Kramer, D. L. and
    2. McLaughlin, R. L.
    (2001). The behavioral ecology of intermittent locomotion. Am. Zool. 41, 137-153. doi:10.1093/icb/41.2.137
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Krapp, H. G. and
    2. Hengstenberg, R.
    (1996). Estimation of self-motion by optic flow processing in single visual interneurons. Nature 384, 463-466. doi:10.1038/384463a0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  35. ↵
    1. Kress, D. and
    2. Egelhaaf, M.
    (2012). Head and body stabilization in blowflies wallking on differently structured substrates. J. Exp. Biol. 215, 1523-1532. doi:10.1242/jeb.066910
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    1. Kress, D. and
    2. Egelhaaf, M.
    (2014a). Gaze characteristics of freely walking blowflies in a goal-directed task. J. Exp. Biol. 217, 3209-3220. doi:10.1242/jeb.097436
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. Kress, D. and
    2. Egelhaaf, M.
    (2014b). Impact of stride-coupled gaze shifts of walking blowflies on the neuronal representation of visual tragets. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 8, 00307. doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00307
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. ↵
    1. Kress, D.,
    2. van Bokhorst, E. and
    3. Lentink, D.
    (2015). How lovebirds maneuver rapidly using super-fast head saccades and image feature stabilization. PLoS ONE 10, e0129287. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0129287
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Lappe, M.,
    2. Bremmer, F. and
    3. van den Berg, A. V.
    (1999). Perception of self-motion from visual flow. Trends Cogn. Sci. 3, 329-336. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01364-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  40. ↵
    1. Muijres, F. T.,
    2. Elzinga, M. J.,
    3. Melis, J. M. and
    4. Dickinson, M. H.
    (2014). Flies evade looming targets by executing rapid visually directed banked turns. Science 344, 172-177. doi:10.1126/science.1248955
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    1. Neuhauss, S. C. F.
    (2003). Behavioral genetic approaches to visual system development and function in zebrafish. J. Neurobiol. 54, 148-160. doi:10.1002/neu.10165
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  42. ↵
    1. Ribak, G.,
    2. Egge, A. R. and
    3. Swallow, J. G.
    (2009). Saccadic head rotations during walking in the stalk-eyes fly (Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni). Proc. R. Soc. B 276, 1643-1649. doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.1721
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. ↵
    1. Schilstra, C. and
    2. van Hateren, J. H.
    (1998). Stabilizing gaze in flying blowflies. Nature 395, 664. doi:10.1038/27114
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. ↵
    1. Scholtyssek, C.,
    2. Dacke, M.,
    3. Kröger, R. and
    4. Baird, E.
    (2014). Control of self-motion in dynamic fluids: fish do it differently from bees. Biol. Lett. 10, 2010279. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2014.0279
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. ↵
    1. Schulte-Pelkum, N.,
    2. Wieskotten, S.,
    3. Hanke, W.,
    4. Dehnhardt, G. and
    5. Mauck, B.
    (2007). Tracking of biogenic hydrodynamic trails in harbour seals (Phoca vitulina). J. Exp. Biol. 210, 781-787. doi:10.1242/jeb.02708
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. ↵
    1. Sherk, N. and
    2. Fowler, G. A.
    (2000). Optic flow and the visual guidance of locomotion in the cat. Int. Rev. Neurobiol. 44, 141-170. doi:10.1016/S0074-7742(08)60741-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Srinivasan, M. V.,
    2. Zhang, S. W.,
    3. Lehrer, M. and
    4. Collett, T. S.
    (1996). Honeybee navigation en route to the goal: visual flight control and odometry. J. Exp. Biol. 199, 237-244.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. ↵
    1. Strod, T.,
    2. Arad, Z.,
    3. Izhaki, I. and
    4. Katzir, G.
    (2004). Cormorants keep their power: visual resolution in a pursuit-diving bird under amphibious and turbid conditions. Curr. Biol. 14, R376-R377. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2004.05.009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  49. ↵
    1. Tammero, L. F. and
    2. Dickinson, M. H.
    (2002). The influence of visual landscape on the free flight behvaiour of the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. J. Exp. Biol. 205, 327-343.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. ↵
    1. van Hateren, J. H.
    (2005). Function and coding in the blowfly H1 neuron during naturalistic optic flow. J. Neurosci. 25, 4343-4352. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0616-05.2005
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. ↵
    1. Van Hateren, J. H. and
    2. Schilstra, C.
    (1999). Blowfly flight and optic flow II. Head movements during flight. J. Exp. Biol. 202, 1491-1500.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. ↵
    1. Wagner, H.
    (1986). Flight performance and visual control of flight of the free-flying housefly (Musca domestica L.) III. Interactions between angular movement induced by wide- and smallfield stimuli. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 312. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1986.0019
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  53. ↵
    1. Warren, W. H.
    (2004). Optic flow. In The Visual Neurosciences, Vol. II (ed. L. Chalupa and J. Werner), pp. 1247-1259. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  54. ↵
    1. Warren, W. H. and
    2. Hannon, D. J.
    (1988). Direction of self-motion is perceived from optical flow. Nature 336, 162-163. doi:10.1038/336162a0
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  55. ↵
    1. Warren, W. H.,
    2. Morris, M. W. and
    3. Kalish, M.
    (1988). Perception of translational heading from optical flow. J. Exp. Psychol. 14, 646-660. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.14.4.646
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  56. ↵
    1. Weiffen, M.,
    2. Möller, B.,
    3. Mauck, B. and
    4. Dehnhardt, G.
    (2006). Effect of water turbidity on the visual acuity of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina). Vision Res. 46, 1777-1783. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2005.08.015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  57. ↵
    1. Weihs, D.
    (1973). Mechanically efficient swimming techniques for fish with negative buoyancy. J. Mar. Res. 31, 194-209.
    OpenUrlWeb of Science
  58. ↵
    1. Wieskotten, S.,
    2. Dehnhardt, G.,
    3. Mauck, B.,
    4. Miersch, L. and
    5. Hanke, W.
    (2010). The impact of glide phases on the trackability of hydrodynamic trails in harbour seals (Phoca vitulina). J. Exp. Biol. 213, 3734-3740. doi:10.1242/jeb.047134
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  59. ↵
    1. Williams, T. M.
    (2001). Intermittent swimming by mammals: a strategy for increasing energetic efficiency during diving. Am. Zool. 41, 166-176.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. ↵
    1. Williams, T. M.,
    2. Davis, R. W.,
    3. Fuiman, L. A.,
    4. Francis, J.,
    5. Le Boeuf, B. J.,
    6. Horning, M. and
    7. Croll, D. A.
    (2000). Sink or swim: strategies for cost-efficient diving by marine mammals. Science 288, 133-137. doi:10.1126/science.288.5463.133
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top

Keywords

 Download PDF

Email
Research Article
Saccadic movement strategy in a semiaquatic species – the harbour seal (Phoca vitulina)
Bart R. H. Geurten, Benedikt Niesterok, Guido Dehnhardt, Frederike D. Hanke
Journal of Experimental Biology 2017 220: 1503-1508; doi: 10.1242/jeb.150763
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Alerts

Article navigation

Other journals from The Company of Biologists

Advertisement

Predicting the Future: Species Survival in a Changing World

Read our new special issue exploring the significant role of experimental biology in assessing and predicting the susceptibility or resilience of species to future, human-induced environmental change.

Big Biology Podcast - Hollie Putnam and coral bleaching

Catch the next JEB-sponsored episode of the Big Biology Podcast where Art and Marty talk to Hollie Putnam about the causes of coral bleaching and the basic biology of corals in the hope of selectively breeding corals that can better tolerate future ocean conditions.

Read Hollie's Review on the subject, which is featured in our current special issue. 

Stark trade-offs and elegant solutions in arthropod visual systems

Many elegant eye specializations that evolved in response to visual challenges continue to be discovered. A new Review by Meece et al. summarises exciting solutions evolved by insects and other arthropods in response to specific visual challenges.

Head bobbing gives pigeons a sense of perspective

Pigeons might look goofy with their head-bobbing walk, but it turns out that the ungainly head manoeuvre allows the birds to judge distance.