Optic flow in the natural habitats of zebrafish supports spatial biases in visual self-motion estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animals benefit from knowing if and how they are moving. Across the animal kingdom, sensory information in the form of optic flow over the visual field is used to estimate self-motion. However, different species exhibit strong spatial biases in how they use optic flow. Here, we show computationally that noisy natural environments favor visual systems that extract spatially biased samples of optic flow when estimating self-motion. The performance associated with these biases, however, depends on interactions between the environment and the animal's brain and behavior. Using the larval zebrafish as a model, we recorded natural optic flow associated with swimming trajectories in the animal's habitat with an omnidirectional camera mounted on a mechanical arm. An analysis of these flow fields suggests that lateral regions of the lower visual field are most informative about swimming speed. This pattern is consistent with the recent findings that zebrafish optomotor responses are preferentially driven by optic flow in the lateral lower visual field, which we extend with behavioral results from a high-resolution spherical arena. Spatial biases in optic-flow sampling are likely pervasive because they are an effective strategy for determining self-motion in noisy natural environments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".