Limits...
Visually guided avoidance in the chameleon (Chamaeleo chameleon): response patterns and lateralization.

Lustig A, Ketter-Katz H, Katzir G - PLoS ONE (2012)

Bottom Line: We found two equal-sized sub-groups, each displaying lateralization of motor responses to a given direction of stimulus approach.Such an anti-symmetrical distribution of lateralization in a population may be indicative of situations in which organisms are regularly exposed to crucial stimuli from all spatial directions.This is because a bimodal distribution of responses to threat in a natural population will reduce the spatial advantage of predators.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Neurobiology and Ethology, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel. Lustigavi@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
The common chameleon, Chamaeleo chameleon, is an arboreal lizard with highly independent, large-amplitude eye movements. In response to a moving threat, a chameleon on a perch responds with distinct avoidance movements that are expressed in its continuous positioning on the side of the perch distal to the threat. We analyzed body-exposure patterns during threat avoidance for evidence of lateralization, that is, asymmetry at the functional/behavioral levels. Chameleons were exposed to a threat approaching horizontally from the left or right, as they held onto a vertical pole that was either wider or narrower than the width of their head, providing, respectively, monocular or binocular viewing of the threat. We found two equal-sized sub-groups, each displaying lateralization of motor responses to a given direction of stimulus approach. Such an anti-symmetrical distribution of lateralization in a population may be indicative of situations in which organisms are regularly exposed to crucial stimuli from all spatial directions. This is because a bimodal distribution of responses to threat in a natural population will reduce the spatial advantage of predators.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Avoidance response patterns of the two side-biased groups on a wide pole.Ventral surface exposure (mean ± SE) on wide poles in response to right- or left-approaching threats in the right-biased (13.1, N  = 10) and in left-biased (13.2, N  = 7) groups. Exposure readings are at 200-ms intervals, (A) at the onset of pole rotation, (B) at the end of pole rotation, and (C) at the end of the test.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3369868&req=5

pone-0037875-g013: Avoidance response patterns of the two side-biased groups on a wide pole.Ventral surface exposure (mean ± SE) on wide poles in response to right- or left-approaching threats in the right-biased (13.1, N  = 10) and in left-biased (13.2, N  = 7) groups. Exposure readings are at 200-ms intervals, (A) at the onset of pole rotation, (B) at the end of pole rotation, and (C) at the end of the test.

Mentions: In tests on wide poles, for the right-biased group, all three spatial parameters were significantly lower in tests on right-approaching threats than on left-approaching threats (Initial exposure: F(1,9)  = 14.412, p  = 0.004; End of rotation exposure: F(1,9)  = 12.269, p  = 0.007; Final exposure: F(1,9)  = 17.058, p  = 0.003) (Figs. 13.1, 14). For the left-biased group, only the Initial exposure and the End of rotation exposure were significantly lower for left-approaching threats than for right-approaching threats (Initial exposure: F(1,6)  = 26.203, p  = 0.002; End of rotation exposure: F(1,6)  = 31.063, p  = 0.001) (Figs. 13.2, 14). The parameter of Final exposure did not differ between the right- and left-approaching threats (F(1,6)  = 2.386, p  = 0.173). The latency to final exposure (Fig. 12) also did not differ between the right- and left-approaching threats in either the right-biased group (F(1,9)  = 1.049, p  = 0.333) or the left-biased group (F(1,6)  = 0.217, p  = 0.658).


Visually guided avoidance in the chameleon (Chamaeleo chameleon): response patterns and lateralization.

Lustig A, Ketter-Katz H, Katzir G - PLoS ONE (2012)

Avoidance response patterns of the two side-biased groups on a wide pole.Ventral surface exposure (mean ± SE) on wide poles in response to right- or left-approaching threats in the right-biased (13.1, N  = 10) and in left-biased (13.2, N  = 7) groups. Exposure readings are at 200-ms intervals, (A) at the onset of pole rotation, (B) at the end of pole rotation, and (C) at the end of the test.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3369868&req=5

pone-0037875-g013: Avoidance response patterns of the two side-biased groups on a wide pole.Ventral surface exposure (mean ± SE) on wide poles in response to right- or left-approaching threats in the right-biased (13.1, N  = 10) and in left-biased (13.2, N  = 7) groups. Exposure readings are at 200-ms intervals, (A) at the onset of pole rotation, (B) at the end of pole rotation, and (C) at the end of the test.
Mentions: In tests on wide poles, for the right-biased group, all three spatial parameters were significantly lower in tests on right-approaching threats than on left-approaching threats (Initial exposure: F(1,9)  = 14.412, p  = 0.004; End of rotation exposure: F(1,9)  = 12.269, p  = 0.007; Final exposure: F(1,9)  = 17.058, p  = 0.003) (Figs. 13.1, 14). For the left-biased group, only the Initial exposure and the End of rotation exposure were significantly lower for left-approaching threats than for right-approaching threats (Initial exposure: F(1,6)  = 26.203, p  = 0.002; End of rotation exposure: F(1,6)  = 31.063, p  = 0.001) (Figs. 13.2, 14). The parameter of Final exposure did not differ between the right- and left-approaching threats (F(1,6)  = 2.386, p  = 0.173). The latency to final exposure (Fig. 12) also did not differ between the right- and left-approaching threats in either the right-biased group (F(1,9)  = 1.049, p  = 0.333) or the left-biased group (F(1,6)  = 0.217, p  = 0.658).

Bottom Line: We found two equal-sized sub-groups, each displaying lateralization of motor responses to a given direction of stimulus approach.Such an anti-symmetrical distribution of lateralization in a population may be indicative of situations in which organisms are regularly exposed to crucial stimuli from all spatial directions.This is because a bimodal distribution of responses to threat in a natural population will reduce the spatial advantage of predators.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Neurobiology and Ethology, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel. Lustigavi@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
The common chameleon, Chamaeleo chameleon, is an arboreal lizard with highly independent, large-amplitude eye movements. In response to a moving threat, a chameleon on a perch responds with distinct avoidance movements that are expressed in its continuous positioning on the side of the perch distal to the threat. We analyzed body-exposure patterns during threat avoidance for evidence of lateralization, that is, asymmetry at the functional/behavioral levels. Chameleons were exposed to a threat approaching horizontally from the left or right, as they held onto a vertical pole that was either wider or narrower than the width of their head, providing, respectively, monocular or binocular viewing of the threat. We found two equal-sized sub-groups, each displaying lateralization of motor responses to a given direction of stimulus approach. Such an anti-symmetrical distribution of lateralization in a population may be indicative of situations in which organisms are regularly exposed to crucial stimuli from all spatial directions. This is because a bimodal distribution of responses to threat in a natural population will reduce the spatial advantage of predators.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus