Why do imagery and perception look and feel so different?

Despite the past few decades of research providing convincing evidence of the similarities in function and neural mechanisms between imagery and perception, for most of us, the experience of the two are undeniably different, why? Here, we review and discuss the differences between imagery and perception and the possible underlying causes of these differences, from function to neural mechanisms. Specifically, we discuss the directional flow of information (top-down versus bottom-up), the differences in targeted cortical layers in primary visual cortex and possible different neural mechanisms of modulation versus excitation. For the first time in history, neuroscience is beginning to shed light on this long-held mystery of why imagery and perception look and feel so different.This article is part of the theme issue ‘Offline perception: voluntary and spontaneous perceptual experiences without matching external stimulation''.     

Why do nectar-foraging bees and wasps work upwards on inflorescences?

Summary Wasps (Dolichovespula and Vespula spp.) worked predominantly upwards when foraging for nectar on inflorescences of the protogynous Scrophularia aquatica, in which the standing crop of nectar sugar per flower showed no clear pattern of vertical distribution up an inflorescence. Bumblebees taking nectar (Bombus hortorum visiting legally, and certain individuals of B. terrestris which positioned themselves head-upwards while taking nectar through holes bitten in the corolla) worked predominantly upwards on the racemose inflorescences of Linaria vulgaris, although the standing crop of nectar sugar per open flower increased up the raceme. Individuals of B. terrestris which robbed Linaria flowers in a head-down position worked predominantly downwards on inflorescences. The upward or downward directionality of intra-inflorescence movements by foraging insects may depend in part on the position these adopt during their flower visits.     

Why do green rods of frog and toad retinas look green?

Amphibian “green” rods express a blue-sensitive cone visual pigment, and should look yellow. However, when observing them axially under microscope one sees them as green. We used single-cell microspectrophotometry (MSP) to reveal the basis of the perceived color of these photoreceptors. Conventional side-on MSP recording of the proximal cell segments reveals no selective long-wave absorbing pigment explaining the green color. End-on MSP recording shows, in addition to the green rod visual pigment, an extra 2- to 4-fold attenuation being almost flat throughout the visible spectrum. This attenuation is absent in red (rhodopsin) rods, and vanishes in green rods when the retina is bathed in high-refractive media, and at wide illumination aperture. The same treatments change the color from green to yellow. It seems that the non-visual pigment attenuation is a result of slender green rod myoids operating as non-selective light guides. We hypothesize that narrow myoids, combined with photomechanical movements of melanin granules, allow a wide range of sensitivity regulation supporting the operation of green rods as blue receptors at mesopic-to low-photopic illumination levels. End-on transmittance spectrum of green rods looks similar to the reflectance spectrum of khaki military uniforms. So their greenness is the combined result of optics and human color vision.     

Why do leafcutter bees cut leaves? New insights into the early evolution of bees

Stark contrasts in clade species diversity are reported across the tree of life and are especially conspicuous when observed in closely related lineages. The explanation for such disparity has often been attributed to the evolution of key innovations that facilitate colonization of new ecological niches. The factors underlying diversification in bees remain poorly explored. Bees are thought to have originated from apoid wasps during the Mid-Cretaceous, a period that coincides with the appearance of angiosperm eudicot pollen grains in the fossil record. The reliance of bees on angiosperm pollen and their fundamental role as angiosperm pollinators have contributed to the idea that both groups may have undergone simultaneous radiations. We demonstrate that one key innovation--the inclusion of foreign material in nest construction--underlies both a massive range expansion and a significant increase in the rate of diversification within the second largest bee family, Megachilidae. Basal clades within the family are restricted to deserts and exhibit plesiomorphic features rarely observed among modern bees, but prevalent among apoid wasps. Our results suggest that early bees inherited a suite of behavioural traits that acted as powerful evolutionary constraints. While the transition to pollen as a larval food source opened an enormous ecological niche for the early bees, the exploitation of this niche and the subsequent diversification of bees only became possible after bees had evolved adaptations to overcome these constraints.     

How do bees learn and recognize visual patterns?

The basic task of perceptual systems is the recognition and localization of objects. The central nervous system has to solve these problems on the basis of the excitation patterns of sensory nerves, in spite of the fact that these provide only ambiguous information about objects. Two processing principles seem to be fundamental for an efficient formation of object representations: the extraction of characteristic features and the ability to assess similarities between different objects. This article reviews investigations in which different training paradigms were applied in order to explore the honeybee's capacities to learn and recognize visual patterns. One aim of these experiments is to assess whether insects use similar processing mechanisms as vertebrates, for instance human beings. By comparing the computational performance of perceptual systems in animals with different evolutionary history we can hope to learn more about the operation of basic rules in nervous systems. “The messages which the brain receives have not the least similarity with the stimuli. They consist in pulses of given intensities and frequencies, characteristic for the transmitting nerve-fiber, which ends at a definite place of the cortex. ... From this information it produces the image of the world by a process which can metaphorically be called a consummate piece of combinatorial mathematics: it sorts out of the maze of indifferent and varying signals, invariant shapes and relations which form the world of ordinary experience.” Max Born (1949) Received: 4 October 1997 / Accepted in revised form: 26 August 1998     

Why do men marry and why do they stray?

Humans are quite unusual compared to other great apes in that reproduction typically takes place within long-term, iteroparous pairings--social arrangements that have been culturally reified as the institution of marriage. With respect to male behaviour, explanations of marriage fall into two major schools of thought. One holds that marriage facilitates a sexual division of labour and paternal investment, both important to the rearing of offspring that are born helpless and remain dependent for remarkably long periods (provisioning model). And the other suggests that the main benefits which men receive from entering into marriage derive from monopolizing access to women's fertility (mating effort model). In this paper, we explore extramarital sexual relationships and the conditions under which they occur as a means of testing predictions derived from these two models. Using data on men's extramarital sexual relationships among Tsimane forager-horticulturists in lowland Bolivia, we tested whether infidelity was more common when men had less of an opportunity to invest in their children or when they risked losing less fertility. We found that Tsimane men appear to be biasing the timing of their affairs to when they are younger and have fewer children, supporting the provisioning model.     

Why do parasitized hosts look different? Resolving the “chicken-egg” dilemma

Phenotypic differences between infected and non-infected hosts are often assumed to be the consequence of parasite infection. However, pre-existing differences in hosts’ phenotypes may promote differential susceptibility to infection. The phenotypic variability observed within the host population may therefore be a cause rather than a consequence of infection. In this study, we aimed at disentangling the causes and the consequences of parasite infection by calculating the value of a phenotypic trait (i.e., the growth rate) of the hosts both before and after infection occurred. That procedure was applied to two natural systems of host–parasite interactions. In the first system, the infection level of an ectoparasite (Tracheliastes polycolpus) decreases the growth rate of its fish host (the rostrum dace, Leuciscus leuciscus). Reciprocally, this same phenotypic trait before infection modulated the future level of host sensitivity to the direct pathogenic effect of the parasite, namely the level of fin degradation. In the second model, causes and consequences linked the growth rate of the fish host (the rainbow smelt, Osmerus mordax) and the level of endoparasite infection (Proteocephalus tetrastomus). Indeed, the host’s growth rate before infection determined the number of parasites later in life, and the parasite biovolume then decreased the host’s growth rate of heavily infected hosts. We demonstrated that reciprocal effects between host phenotypes and parasite infection can occur simultaneously in the wild, and that the observed variation in the host phenotype population was not necessarily a consequence of parasite infection. Disentangling the causality of host–parasite interactions should contribute substantially to evaluating the role of parasites in ecological and evolutionary processes. Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (doi:) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Why and how do we model circadian rhythms?

In our attempts to understand the circadian system, we unavoidably rely on abstractions. Instead of describing the behavior of the circadian system in all its complexity, we try to derive basic features from which we form a global concept on how the system works. Such a basic concept is a model of reality. The author discusses why it is advantageous or even necessary to transform conceptual models into mathematical formulations. As examples to demonstrate those advantages, the author reviews 4 types of mathematical models: negative feedback models thought to operate within pacemaker cells, models on coupling between pacemaker cells to generate pacemaker output, oscillator models describing the behavior of the composite circadian pacemaker, and models describing how the circadian pacemaker influences behavior.     

Why and where do oligochaetes hide their cocoons?

In Mondsee, a prealpine lake of Austria, abundance and vertical distribution of oligochaetes were investigated at four different depths (5, 10, 20 and 40 m). Adult oligochaetes and cocoons were found to be almost always absent in the uppermost centimeters of sediment. A hypothesis was developed that predation by fish is one factor, among others, inducing the observed vertical distribution patterns. In the laboratory the predation efficiency of the fish Abramis brama decreased with increasing sediment cover over the cocoons. Tolerance limits of embryonic worms to anaerobic conditions (LC 50 values) were found to differ for different developmental stages, ranging from 28 hrs for eggs to 43 hrs for fully developed embryos. Oxygen uptake rates of oligochaete embryos increased with their stages of development, eggs using 1.51 and fully developed embryos 3.32 nl O₂/ind./h (10°C).     

Why do animals hybridize?

Animal hybridization is increasingly recognized as common and evolutionarily important, but the role of behavior in promoting hybridization events is not well understood. Understanding the behavioral causes of hybridization requires understanding the ecological, demographic, and phenotypic influences on mate choice in hybridizing taxa. Here, I review how these influences on mate choice can contribute to hybridization by (1) circumventing (female) choice, (2) bringing formerly isolated species into sympatry, (3) masking cues important for mate recognition, (4) altering the traits or preferences involved in mate recognition, or (5) altering the costs and benefits of mate choice. In particular, hybridization in response to either high direct costs of mate choice or high direct benefits of heterospecific mating may be widespread, a possibility that awaits further testing. Adopting a mate choice perspective to the study of hybridization challenges the assumption of hybrids as reproductive “mistakes” and allows for functional explanations regarding the occurrence and maintenance of hybridization. As evidence of the prevalence and evolutionary importance of animal hybridization accumulates, investigations into the role of behavior will be increasingly important for our understanding of diversification and for conservation applications.     

Why do plants silicify?

Despite seminal papers that stress the significance of silicon (Si) in plant biology and ecology, most studies focus on manipulations of Si supply and mitigation of stresses. The ecological significance of Si varies with different levels of biological organization, and remains hard to capture. We show that the costs of Si accumulation are greater than is currently acknowledged, and discuss potential links between Si and fitness components (growth, survival, reproduction), environment, and ecosystem functioning. We suggest that Si is more important in trait-based ecology than is currently recognized. Si potentially plays a significant role in many aspects of plant ecology, but knowledge gaps prevent us from understanding its possible contribution to the success of some clades and the expansion of specific biomes.     

Why do species exist? Insights from sexuals and asexuals

Why does life diversify into the more or less discrete entities we recognise as species? Two main explanations have been proposed: i) species are a consequence of adaptation to different ecological niches, ii) species are a consequence of sexual reproduction and reproductive isolation. Phylogenetic studies of case-study groups can provide insights into the relative importance of divergent selection and isolation for speciation, but it can be difficult to infer causes of speciation unambiguously. The example of North American tiger beetles from the genus Cicindela is discussed. An alternative approach is to compare diversification between related sexual and asexual taxa to infer the relative importance of the two explanations. We outline expected patterns of diversification in sexual and asexual lineages under different scenarios using coalescent theory. Whether sexuals or asexuals diversify to a greater extent depends on the balance among various stages of diversification, particularly on the effects of sexual reproduction on rates of adaptive evolution. Rotifers offer a unique system to test these ideas, allowing comparison of patterns of genetic and functional morphological diversification in sexual (bdelloid) and asexual (monogonont) clades.     

Why do mothers favor girls and fathers, boys?

Growing evidence suggests mothers invest more in girls than boys and fathers more in boys than girls. We develop a hypothesis that predicts preference for girls by the parent facing more resource constraints and preference for boys by the parent facing less constraint. We test the hypothesis with panel data from the Tsimane’, a foraging-farming society in the Bolivian Amazon. Tsimane’ mothers face more resource constraints than fathers. As predicted, mother’s wealth protected girl’s BMI, but father’s wealth had weak effects on boy’s BMI. Numerous tests yielded robust results, including those that controlled for fixed effects of child and household.     

Why do symbiotic copepods matter?

Currently, less than 10% of the members of the World Association of Copepodologists are working actively on symbiotic copepods. This surprisingly small guild of workers is thought to result from a general lack of understanding of the importance of symbiotic copepods. Symbiotic copepods as a whole comprise more than one-third (4224/11956 or 35.33%) of known copepods. They are found not only in the five major orders of Copepoda (Calanoida, Harpacticoida, Cyclopoida, Poecilostomatoida and Siphonostomatoida), but also in association with all major phyla of marine animals, ranging from sponges up to mammals (cetaceans). Discussion on these subjects is augmented with information on the impact of symbiotic copepods on aquaculture, and their exhibition of unusual biological phenomena. It is concluded that copepodologists today need to pay more attention to the symbiotic copepods, if copepodology is to become a major subject of modern biological sciences.