The tiny brains of insects presumably impose significant computational limitations on algorithms controlling their behavior. Nevertheless, they perform fast and sophisticated visual maneuvers. This includes tracking features composed of second-order motion, in which the feature is defined by higher-order image statistics, but not simple correlations in luminance. Flies can track the true direction of even theta motions, in which the first-order (luminance) motion is directed opposite the second-order moving feature. We exploited this paradoxical feature tracking response to dissect the particular image properties that flies use to track moving objects. We find that theta motion detection is not simply a result of steering toward any spatially restricted flicker. Rather, our results show that fly high-order feature tracking responses can be broken down into positional and velocity components - in other words, the responses can be modeled as a superposition of two independent steering efforts. We isolate these elements to show that each has differing influence on phase and amplitude of steering responses, and together they explain the time course of second-order motion tracking responses during flight. These observations are relevant to natural scenes, where moving features can be much more complex.

The behavioral algorithms and neural subsystems for visual figure-ground discrimination are not sufficiently described in any model system. The fly visual system shares structural and functional similarity with that of vertebrates and, like vertebrates, flies robustly track visual figures in the face of ground motion. This computation is crucial for animals that pursue salient objects under the high performance requirements imposed by flight behavior. Flies smoothly track small objects and use wide-field optic flow to maintain flight-stabilizing optomotor reflexes. The spatial and temporal properties of visual figure tracking and wide-field stabilization have been characterized in flies, but how the two systems interact spatially to allow flies to actively track figures against a moving ground has not. We took a systems identification approach in flying Drosophila and measured wing-steering responses to velocity impulses of figure and ground motion independently. We constructed a spatiotemporal action field (STAF) - the behavioral analog of a spatiotemporal receptive field - revealing how the behavioral impulse responses to figure tracking and concurrent ground stabilization vary for figure motion centered at each location across the visual azimuth. The figure tracking and ground stabilization STAFs show distinct spatial tuning and temporal dynamics, confirming the independence of the two systems. When the figure tracking system is activated by a narrow vertical bar moving within the frontal field of view, ground motion is essentially ignored despite comprising over 90% of the total visual input.

A moving visual figure may contain first-order signals defined by variation in mean luminance, as well as second-order signals defined by constant mean luminance and variation in luminance envelope, or higher-order signals that cannot be estimated by taking higher moments of the luminance distribution. Separating these properties of a moving figure to experimentally probe the visual subsystems that encode them is technically challenging and has resulted in debated mechanisms of visual object detection by flies. Our prior work took a white noise systems identification approach using a commercially available electronic display system to characterize the spatial variation in the temporal dynamics of two distinct subsystems for first- and higher-order components of visual figure tracking. The method relied on the use of single pixel displacements of two visual stimuli according to two binary maximum length shift register sequences (m-sequences) and cross-correlation of each m-sequence with time-varying flight steering measurements. The resultant spatio-temporal action fields represent temporal impulse responses parameterized by the azimuthal location of the visual figure, one STAF for first-order and another for higher-order components of compound stimuli. Here we review m-sequence and reverse correlation procedures, then describe our application in detail, provide Matlab code, validate the STAFs, and demonstrate the utility and robustness of STAFs by predicting the results of other published experimental procedures. This method has demonstrated how two relatively modest innovations on classical white noise analysis--the inclusion of space as a way to organize response kernels and the use of linear decoupling to measure the response to two channels of visual information simultaneously--could substantially improve our basic understanding of visual processing in the fly.