Fine-scale body and head movements allow to determine prey capture events in the Magellanic Penguin (Spheniscus magellanicus)

2021 ◽  
Vol 168 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Monserrat Del Caño ◽  
Flavio Quintana ◽  
Ken Yoda ◽  
Giacomo Dell’Omo ◽  
Gabriela S. Blanco ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 166 ◽  
pp. 112232
Author(s):  
Hugo Gallo Neto ◽  
Carla Gomes Bantel ◽  
John Browning ◽  
Natalia Della Fina ◽  
Tami Albuquerque Ballabio ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Virginia Petry ◽  
Luiz Liberato Costa Corrêa ◽  
Victória Renata Fontoura Benemann ◽  
Gabriela Bandasz Werle

1991 ◽  
Vol 159 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
PETER C. WAINWRIGHT ◽  
DAVID M. KRAKLAU ◽  
ALBERT F. BENNETT

The kinematics of prey capture by the chamaeleonid lizard Chamaeleo oustaleti were studied using high-speed cinematography. Three feeding sequences from each of two individuals were analyzed for strike distances of 20 and 35 cm, at 30°C. Ten distances and angles were measured from sequential frames beginning approximately 0.5 s prior to tongue projection and continuing for about 1.0 s. Sixteen additional variables, documenting maximum excursions and the timing of events, were calculated from the kinematic profiles. Quantified descriptions of head, hyoid and tongue movements are presented. Previously unrecognized rapid protraction of the hyobranchial skeleton simultaneously with the onset of tongue projection was documented and it is proposed that this assists the accelerator muscle in powering tongue projection. Acceleration of the tongue occurred in about 20ms, reaching a maximum acceleration of 486 m s−2 and maximum velocity of 5.8m s−1 in 35 cm strikes. Deceleration of the tongue usually began within 5 ms before prey contract and the direction of tongue movement was reversed within 10 ms of prey contact. Retraction of the tongue, caused by shortening of the retractor muscles, reached a maximum velocity of 2.99 ms−1 and was complete 330 ms after prey contact. Projection distance influences many aspects of prey capture kinematics, particularly projection time, tongue retraction time and the extent of gape and head movements during tongue retraction, all of which are smaller in shorter feedings. Though several features of the chameleon strike have apparently been retained from lizards not capable of ballistic tongue projection, key differences are documented. Unlike members of a related family, the Agamidae, C. oustaleti uses no body lunge during prey capture, exhibits gape reduction during tongue projection and strongly depresses the head and jaws during tongue retraction. Note: Present address: Department of Biological Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA.


2015 ◽  
Vol 77 (8) ◽  
pp. 1029-1031 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fumiko SUZUTA ◽  
Kumiko KIMURA ◽  
Ryo URAKAWA ◽  
Yukio KUSUDA ◽  
Shogo TANAKA ◽  
...  

1991 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela Maria Suburo ◽  
Maria Veronica Herrero ◽  
Jose Alejandro Scolaro

Author(s):  
Angie M. Michaiel ◽  
Elliott T.T. Abe ◽  
Cristopher M. Niell

ABSTRACTMany studies of visual processing are conducted in unnatural conditions, such as head- and gaze-fixation. As this radically limits natural exploration of the visual environment, there is much less known about how animals actively use their sensory systems to acquire visual information in natural, goal-directed contexts. Recently, prey capture has emerged as an ethologically relevant behavior that mice perform without training, and that engages vision for accurate orienting and pursuit. However, it is unclear how mice target their gaze during such natural behaviors, particularly since, in contrast to many predatory species, mice have a narrow binocular field and lack foveate vision that would entail fixing their gaze on a specific point in the visual field. Here we measured head and bilateral eye movements in freely moving mice performing prey capture. We find that the majority of eye movements are compensatory for head movements, thereby acting to stabilize the visual scene. During head turns, however, these periods of stabilization are interspersed with non-compensatory saccades that abruptly shift gaze position. Analysis of eye movements relative to the cricket position shows that the saccades do not preferentially select a specific point in the visual scene. Rather, orienting movements are driven by the head, with the eyes following in coordination to sequentially stabilize and recenter the gaze. These findings help relate eye movements in the mouse to other species, and provide a foundation for studying active vision during ethological behaviors in the mouse.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document