Cargando…

Interception by two predatory fly species is explained by a proportional navigation feedback controller

When aiming to capture a fast-moving target, animals can follow it until they catch up, or try to intercept it. In principle, interception is the more complicated strategy, but also more energy efficient. To study whether simple feedback controllers can explain interception behaviours by animals wit...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fabian, Samuel T., Sumner, Mary E., Wardill, Trevor J., Rossoni, Sergio, Gonzalez-Bellido, Paloma T.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Royal Society 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6228472/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30333249
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2018.0466
_version_ 1783370028347817984
author Fabian, Samuel T.
Sumner, Mary E.
Wardill, Trevor J.
Rossoni, Sergio
Gonzalez-Bellido, Paloma T.
author_facet Fabian, Samuel T.
Sumner, Mary E.
Wardill, Trevor J.
Rossoni, Sergio
Gonzalez-Bellido, Paloma T.
author_sort Fabian, Samuel T.
collection PubMed
description When aiming to capture a fast-moving target, animals can follow it until they catch up, or try to intercept it. In principle, interception is the more complicated strategy, but also more energy efficient. To study whether simple feedback controllers can explain interception behaviours by animals with miniature brains, we have reconstructed and studied the predatory flights of the robber fly Holcocephala fusca and killer fly Coenosia attenuata. Although both species catch other aerial arthropods out of the air, Holcocephala contrasts prey against the open sky, while Coenosia hunts against clutter and at much closer range. Thus, their solutions to this target catching task may differ significantly. We reconstructed in three dimensions the flight trajectories of these two species and those of the presented targets they were attempting to intercept. We then tested their recorded performances against simulations. We found that both species intercept targets on near time-optimal courses. To investigate the guidance laws that could underlie this behaviour, we tested three alternative control systems (pure pursuit, deviated pursuit and proportional navigation). Only proportional navigation explains the timing and magnitude of fly steering responses, but with differing gain constants and delays for each fly species. Holcocephala uses a dimensionless navigational constant of N ≈ 3 with a time delay of ≈28 ms to intercept targets over a comparatively long range. This constant is optimal, as it minimizes the control effort required to hit the target. In contrast, Coenosia uses a constant of N ≈ 1.5 with a time delay of ≈18 ms, this setting may allow Coenosia to cope with the extremely high line-of-sight rotation rates, which are due to close target proximity, and thus prevent overcompensation of steering. This is the first clear evidence of interception supported by proportional navigation in insects. This work also demonstrates how by setting different gains and delays, the same simple feedback controller can yield the necessary performance in two different environments.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6228472
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher The Royal Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62284722018-12-12 Interception by two predatory fly species is explained by a proportional navigation feedback controller Fabian, Samuel T. Sumner, Mary E. Wardill, Trevor J. Rossoni, Sergio Gonzalez-Bellido, Paloma T. J R Soc Interface Life Sciences–Engineering interface When aiming to capture a fast-moving target, animals can follow it until they catch up, or try to intercept it. In principle, interception is the more complicated strategy, but also more energy efficient. To study whether simple feedback controllers can explain interception behaviours by animals with miniature brains, we have reconstructed and studied the predatory flights of the robber fly Holcocephala fusca and killer fly Coenosia attenuata. Although both species catch other aerial arthropods out of the air, Holcocephala contrasts prey against the open sky, while Coenosia hunts against clutter and at much closer range. Thus, their solutions to this target catching task may differ significantly. We reconstructed in three dimensions the flight trajectories of these two species and those of the presented targets they were attempting to intercept. We then tested their recorded performances against simulations. We found that both species intercept targets on near time-optimal courses. To investigate the guidance laws that could underlie this behaviour, we tested three alternative control systems (pure pursuit, deviated pursuit and proportional navigation). Only proportional navigation explains the timing and magnitude of fly steering responses, but with differing gain constants and delays for each fly species. Holcocephala uses a dimensionless navigational constant of N ≈ 3 with a time delay of ≈28 ms to intercept targets over a comparatively long range. This constant is optimal, as it minimizes the control effort required to hit the target. In contrast, Coenosia uses a constant of N ≈ 1.5 with a time delay of ≈18 ms, this setting may allow Coenosia to cope with the extremely high line-of-sight rotation rates, which are due to close target proximity, and thus prevent overcompensation of steering. This is the first clear evidence of interception supported by proportional navigation in insects. This work also demonstrates how by setting different gains and delays, the same simple feedback controller can yield the necessary performance in two different environments. The Royal Society 2018-10 2018-10-17 /pmc/articles/PMC6228472/ /pubmed/30333249 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2018.0466 Text en © 2018 The Authors. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Life Sciences–Engineering interface
Fabian, Samuel T.
Sumner, Mary E.
Wardill, Trevor J.
Rossoni, Sergio
Gonzalez-Bellido, Paloma T.
Interception by two predatory fly species is explained by a proportional navigation feedback controller
title Interception by two predatory fly species is explained by a proportional navigation feedback controller
title_full Interception by two predatory fly species is explained by a proportional navigation feedback controller
title_fullStr Interception by two predatory fly species is explained by a proportional navigation feedback controller
title_full_unstemmed Interception by two predatory fly species is explained by a proportional navigation feedback controller
title_short Interception by two predatory fly species is explained by a proportional navigation feedback controller
title_sort interception by two predatory fly species is explained by a proportional navigation feedback controller
topic Life Sciences–Engineering interface
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6228472/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30333249
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2018.0466
work_keys_str_mv AT fabiansamuelt interceptionbytwopredatoryflyspeciesisexplainedbyaproportionalnavigationfeedbackcontroller
AT sumnermarye interceptionbytwopredatoryflyspeciesisexplainedbyaproportionalnavigationfeedbackcontroller
AT wardilltrevorj interceptionbytwopredatoryflyspeciesisexplainedbyaproportionalnavigationfeedbackcontroller
AT rossonisergio interceptionbytwopredatoryflyspeciesisexplainedbyaproportionalnavigationfeedbackcontroller
AT gonzalezbellidopalomat interceptionbytwopredatoryflyspeciesisexplainedbyaproportionalnavigationfeedbackcontroller