Zooming in for a safe flight

Bats do not use sight to navigate when flying. Instead, they emit ultrasound pulses and measure the echoes reflected from their surroundings. They have an extremely flexible internal navigation system that enables them to do this. A new study published in Nature Communications shows that when a bat flies close to an object, the number of active neurons in the part of a bat’s brain responsible for processing acoustic information about spatial positioning increases. This information helps these masters of flight to react rapidly and avoid obstacles.

As nocturnal animals, bats are perfectly adapted to a life without light. They emit echolocation sounds and use the delay between the reflected echoes to measure distance to obstacles or prey. In their brains, they have a spatial map representing different echo delays. A study carried out by researchers at Technische Universität München (TUM) has shown for the first time that this map dynamically adapts to external factors.

Closer objects appear larger

When a bat flies in too close to an object, the number of activated neurons in its brain increases. As a result, the object appears disproportionately larger on the bat’s brain map than objects at a safe distance, as if it were magnified. “The map is similar to the navigation systems used in cars in that it shows bats the terrain in which they are moving,” explains study director Dr. Uwe Firzlaff at the TUM Chair of Zoology. “The major difference, however, is that the bats’ inbuilt system warns them of an impending collision by enhancing neuronal signals for objects that are in close proximity.”

Bats constantly adapt their flight maneuvers to their surroundings to avoid collisions with buildings, trees or other animals. The ability to determine lateral distance to other objects also plays a key role here. Which is why bats process more spatial information than just echo delays. “Bats evaluate their own motion and map it against the lateral distance to objects,” elaborates the researcher.

Brain processes complex spatial information

In addition to the echo reflection time, bats process the reflection angle of echoes. They also compare the sound volume of their calls with those of the reflected sound waves and measure the wave spectrum of the echo. “Our research has led us to conclude that bats display much more spatial information on their acoustic maps than just echo reflection.”

The results show that the nerve cells interpret the bats’ rapid responses to external stimuli by enlarging the active area in the brain to display important information. “We may have just uncovered one of the fundamental mechanisms that enables vertebrates to adapt flexibly to continuously changing environments,” concludes Firzlaff.

Bats bolster brain hypothesis, maybe technology, too

Amid a neuroscience debate about how people and animals focus on distinct objects within cluttered scenes, some of the newest and best evidence comes from the way bats “see” with their ears, according to a new paper in the Journal of Experimental Biology. In fact, the perception process in question could improve sonar and radar technology.

Bats demonstrate remarkable skill in tracking targets such as bugs through the trees in the dark of night. James Simmons, professor of neuroscience at Brown University, the review paper’s author, has long sought to explain how they do that.

It turns out that experiments in Simmons’ lab point to the “temporal binding hypothesis” as an explanation. The hypothesis proposes that people and animals focus on objects versus the background when a set of neurons in the brain attuned to features of an object all respond in synchrony, as if shouting in unison, “Yes, look at that!” When the neurons do not respond together to an object, the hypothesis predicts, an object is relegated to the perceptual background.

Because bats have an especially acute need to track prey through crowded scenes, albeit with echolocation rather than vision, they have evolved to become an ideal testbed for the hypothesis.

“Sometimes the most critical questions about systems in biology that relate to humans are best approached by using an animal species whose lifestyle requires that the system in question be exaggerated in some functional sense so its qualities are more obvious,” said Simmons, who plans to discuss the research at the 2014 Cold Spring Harbor Asia Conference the week of September 15 in Suzhou, China.

A focus of frequencies

Here’s how he’s determined over the years that temporal binding works in a bat. As the bat flies it emits two spectra of sound frequencies — one high and one low — into a wide cone of space ahead of it. Within the spectra are harmonic pairs of high and low frequencies, for example 33 kilohertz and 66 kilohertz. These harmonic pairs reflect off of objects and back to the bat’s ears, triggering a response from neurons in its brain. Objects that reflect these harmonic pairs in perfect synchrony are the ones that stand out clearly for the bat.

Of course it’s more complicated than just that. Many things could reflect the same frequency pairs back at the same time. The real question is how a target object would stand out. The answer, Simmons writes, comes from the physics of the echolocation sound waves and how bat brains have evolved to process their signal. Those factors conspire to ensure that whatever the bat keeps front-and-center in its echolocation cone will stand out from surrounding interference.

The higher frequency sounds in the bat’s spectrum weaken in transit through the air more than lower frequency sounds. The bat also sends out the lower frequencies to a wider span of angles than the high frequencies. So for any given harmonic pair, the farther away or more peripheral a reflecting object is, the weaker the higher frequency reflection in the harmonic pair will be. In the brain, Simmons writes, the bat converts this difference in signal strength into a delay in time (about 15 microseconds per decibel) so that harmonic pairs with wide differences in signal strength end up being perceived as way out of synchrony in time. The temporal binding hypothesis predicts that the distant or peripheral objects with these out-of-synch signals will be perceived as the background while front-and-center objects that reflect back both harmonics with equal strength will rise above their desynchronized competitors.

With support from sources including the U.S. Navy, Simmons’s research group has experimentally verified this. In key experiments (some dating back 40 years) they have sat big brown bats at the base of a Y-shaped platform with a pair of objects – one a target with a food reward and the other a distractor – on the tines of the Y. When the objects are at different distances, the bat can tell them apart and accurately crawl to the target. When the objects are equidistant, the bat becomes confused. Crucially, when the experimenters artificially weaken the high-pitched harmonic from the distracting object, even when it remains equidistant, the bat’s acumen to find the target is restored.

In further experiments in 2010 and 2011, Simmons’ team showed that if they shifted the distractor object’s weakened high-frequency signal by the right amount of time (15 microseconds per decibel) they could restore the distractor’s ability to interfere with the target object by restoring the synchrony of the distractor’s harmonics. In other words, they used the specific predictions of the hypothesis and their understanding of how it works in bats to jam the bat’s echolocation ability.

If targeting and jamming sound like words associated with radar and sonar, that’s no coincidence. Simmons works with the U.S. Navy on applications of bat echolocation to navigation technology. He recently began a new research grant from the Office of Naval Research that involves bat sonar work in collaboration with researcher Jason Gaudette at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Newport, R.I.

Simmons said he believes the evidence he has gathered about the neuroscience of bats not only supports the temporal binding hypothesis, but also can inspire new technology.

“This is a better way to design a radar or sonar system if you need it to perform well in real-time for a small vehicle in complicated tasks,” he said.

Bats Can Recognize Each Other’s Voices

If bats ever used a cell phone, they could forgo the version with caller ID: The mammals can identify each other by their voices, a new study says.

Bats aren’t the only mammals to use voice recognition—people do it, too. Even in the days before caller ID, a simple “Hi, it’s me,” from a close friend or loved one was usually enough to figure out who’s on the other end. Recognizing a person by voice, however, requires previous knowledge: We can’t identify a stranger on the phone by voice alone because we have never met them before.

People can, however, discriminate between a familiar voice and an unfamiliar one, even if they’ve never met the other person. We can also distinguish between two individuals by voice alone even if we’ve never met them before.

Hanna Kastein and colleagues at the University of Veterinary Medicine in Hannover, Germany, wanted to know whether bats could perform these same tasks.

“Bats are totally interesting mammals to study voice perception since they are dependent on their vocalizations for orientation and communication due to their nocturnal lifestyle. In addition, they are socially living animals that frequently communicate acoustically with other members of their species,” Kastein said.

Besides their social lifestyles, bats and people share a number of physical characteristics. Both produce sounds using a combination of the larynx, vocal cords, and nasal cavities. These structures work together with an animal’s physical makeup to produce an individual’s unique voice.

“In stressful situations, voices become higher pitched, or ‘squeaky,’ in bats as in humans. Also, each individual bat has a slightly different morphology, and thus its voice sounds different from any other individual, just as voices in humans differ individually,” Kastein said.

You Had Me at Hello

Kastein and colleagues wanted to know whether bats could use vocal calls to identify individuals with which they shared a roost, and whether they could use these same calls to distinguish between two different individuals.

The researchers worked with the greater false vampire bat (Megaderma lyra) because the species has a rich array of calls that it uses in several contexts.

The team observed two groups of bats kept in separate artificial roosts for two months. They hypothesized that bats that had the most body contact while roosting would form the closest relationships. Kastein and colleagues then recorded various vocal calls from both groups of bats.

When Kastein played the recording of a vocal call over a loudspeaker, bats in both roosts universally turned their heads toward the speaker regardless of whether the call was from a bat with which they had close body contact, a bat from the same roost, or a bat from the other roost.

Given that the artificial roosts had much lower rates of vocal calls, due to the lack of stimuli, the researchers thought that this response could be due to the novelty of hearing any type of vocalization.

Discriminating Bat

So the team did a second set of experiments in which they had a bat listen to the call of their “friend” until the call didn’t create any type of behavioral response, such as turning the head. This means the listening bat had become habituated to the call, according to the study, published recently in the journal Animal Cognition.

Then, the scientists alternated playing a vocalization of the bat friend with that of an unfamiliar bat. The listening bats were significantly more likely to turn their heads toward the call of their friend—indicating both that they recognized their friend and that they could distinguish between individual vocalizations.

“In our study, we found that the … false vampire bat is able to discriminate between different voices, including both known or unknown individuals,” Kastein noted.

“However, to what extent bats are able to label an unknown bat as unknown, we cannot say.” She suspects that in real life, recognizing other bats by their voices is aided by smell and, to a lesser extent, vision.

Neural Activity in Bats Measured In Flight

Animals navigate and orient themselves to survive – to find food and shelter or avoid predators, for example. Research conducted by Dr. Nachum Ulanovsky and research student Michael Yartsev of the Weizmann Institute’s Neurobiology Department, published today in Science, reveals for the first time how three-dimensional, volumetric, space is perceived in mammalian brains. The research was conducted using a unique, miniaturized neural-telemetry system developed especially for this task, which enabled the measurement of single brain cells during flight.

The question of how animals orient themselves in space has been extensively studied, but until now experiments were only conducted in two-dimensional settings. These have found, for instance, that orientation relies on “place cells” – neurons located in the hippocampus, a part of the brain involved in memory, especially spatial memory. Each place cell is responsible for a spatial area, and it sends an electrical signal when the animal is located in that area. Together, the place cells produce full representations of whole spatial environments. Unlike the laboratory experiments, however, the navigation of many animals in the real world, including humans, is carried out in three dimensions. But attempts to expand the scope of experiments from two to three dimensions had encountered difficulties.

One of the more famous efforts in this area was conducted by the University of Arizona and NASA, in which they launched rats into space (aboard a space shuttle). However, although the rats moved around in zero gravity, they ran along a set of straight, one-dimensional lines. Other experiments with three-dimensional projections onto two-dimensional surfaces did not manage to produce volumetric data, either. The conclusion was that in order to understand movement in three-dimensional, volumetric space, it is necessary to allow animals to move through all three dimensions – that is, to research animals in flight.

Ulanovsky chose to study the Egyptian fruit bat, a very common bat species in Israel. Because these are relatively large, the researchers were able to attach the wireless measuring system in a manner that did not restrict the bats’ movements. Developing this sophisticated measuring system was a several-year effort. Ulanovsky, in cooperation with a US commercial company, created a wireless, lightweight (12 g, about 7% of the weight of the bat) device containing electrodes that measure the activity of individual neurons in the bat’s brain.

The next challenge the scientists faced was adapting the behavior of their bats to the needs of the experiment. Bats naturally fly toward their destination – for example, a fruit tree – in a straight line. In other words, their normal flight patterns are one-dimensional, while the experiment required their flights to fill a three-dimensional space.

The solution was to be found in a previous study in Ulanovsky’s group, which tracked wild fruit bats using miniature GPS devices. One of the discoveries was that when bats arrive at a fruit tree, they fly around it, utilizing the full volume of space surrounding the tree. To simulate this behavior in the laboratory – an artificial cave equipped with an array of bat-monitoring devices – the team installed an artificial “tree” made of metal bars and cups filled with fruit.

Measuring the activity of hippocampus neurons in the bats’ brains revealed that the representation of three-dimensional space is similar to that in two dimensions: Each place cell is responsible for identifying a particular spatial area in the “cave” and sends an electrical signal when the bat is located in that area. Together, the population of place cells provides full coverage of the cave – left and right, up and down.

A closer examination of the areas for which individual place cells are responsible provided an answer to a highly-debated question: Does the brain perceive the three dimensions of space as “equal,” that is, does it sense the height axis in the same way as that of length or width? The findings suggest that each place cell responds to a spherical volume of space, i.e., the perception of all three dimensions is uniform. The researchers note that for those non-flying animals that essentially move in flat space, the different axes might not be perceived at the same resolution. It may be that such animals are naturally more sensitive to changes along the length and width axes than that of height. This question is of particular interest when it comes to humans because on the one hand, humans evolved from apes that moved in three-dimensional space when swinging from branch to branch, but on the other hand, modern, ground-dwelling humans generally navigate in two-dimensional space.

The findings provide new insights into some basic functions of the brain: navigation, spatial memory and spatial perception. To a large extent, this is due to the development of innovative technology that allowed the first glimpse into the brain of a flying animal. Ulanovsky believes that this trend, in which research is becoming more “natural,” is the future wave of neuroscience.

Bat and Rat Brain Rhythms Differ When on the Move

To get a clear picture of how humans and other mammals form memories and find their way through their surroundings, neuroscientists must pay more attention to a broad range of animals rather than focus on a single model species, say two University of Maryland researchers, Katrina MacLeod and Cynthia Moss. Their new comparative study of bats and rats reports differences between the species that suggest the need to revise models of spatial navigation.

In a paper appearing in the April 19, 2013 issue of Science, the UMD researchers and two colleagues at Boston University reported significant differences between rats’ and bats’ brain rhythms when certain cells were active in a part of the brain used in memory and navigation.

These cells behaved as expected in rats, which mostly move along surfaces. But in bats, which fly, the continuous brain rhythm did not appear, said Moss, a professor in Psychology and Biology and the Institute for Systems Research.

The finding suggests that even though rats, bats, humans and other mammals share a common neural representation of space in a part of the brain that has been linked to spatial information and memory, they may have different cellular mechanisms to create or interpret those maps, said MacLeod, an assistant research scientist in Biology.

“To understand brains, including ours, we really must study neural activity in a variety of animals,” MacLeod said. “Common features across multiple species tell us ‘Aha, this is important,’ but differences can occur because of variances in the animals’ ecology, behavior, or evolutionary history.”

The research team focused on a brain region that contains specialized “grid cells,” so named because they form a hexagonal grid of activity related to the animal’s location as it navigates through space. This brain region, the medial entorhinal cortex, sits next to the hippocampus, the place that, in humans, forms memories of events such as where a car is parked. The medial entorhinal cortex acts as a hub of neural networks for memory and navigation.

Grid cells were first noticed in rats navigating their environment, but recent work by Nachum Ulanovsky (Moss’s former postdoctoral researcher at UMD) and his research team at the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot, Israel, has shown these cells exist in bats as well.

In rats, grid cells fire in a pattern called a theta wave when the animals spatially navigate. Theta waves are fairly low-frequency electrical oscillations that also have been observed at the cellular level in the medial entorhinal cortex. The prominence of theta waves in rats suggested they were important. As a result, neuroscientists, trying to understand the relationship between theta waves and grid cells, have developed models of the brain based on the assumption that theta waves are key to spatial navigation in mammals.

However, Moss said, “recordings from the brains of bats navigating in space contain a surprise, because the expected theta rhythms aren’t continuously present as they are in the rodent.”

The new Science study doubles down on the lack of theta in bats by reporting that theta rhythms also are not present at the cellular level. “The bat neurons don’t ‘ring’ the way the rat neurons do,” says MacLeod. “This raises a lots of questions as to whether theta rhythms are actually doing what the spatial navigation theory proposes in rats or even humans.”

Researchers build robotic bat wing

Researchers at Brown University have developed a robotic bat wing that is providing valuable new information about dynamics of flapping flight in real bats.

The robot, which mimics the wing shape and motion of the lesser dog-faced fruit bat, is designed to flap while attached to a force transducer in a wind tunnel. As the lifelike wing flaps, the force transducer records the aerodynamic forces generated by the moving wing. By measuring the power output of the three servo motors that control the robot’s seven movable joints, researchers can evaluate the energy required to execute wing movements.

Testing showed the robot can match the basic flight parameters of bats, producing enough thrust to overcome drag and enough lift to carry the weight of the model species.

A paper describing the robot and presenting results from preliminary experiments is published in the journal Bioinspiration and Biomimetics. The work was done in labs of Brown professors Kenneth Breuer and Sharon Swartz, who are the senior authors on the paper. Breuer, an engineer, and Swartz, a biologist, have studied bat flight and anatomy for years.

The faux flapper generates data that could never be collected directly from live animals, said Joseph Bahlman, a graduate student at Brown who led the project. Bats can’t fly when connected to instruments that record aerodynamic forces directly, so that isn’t an option — and bats don’t take requests.

“We can’t ask a bat to flap at a frequency of eight hertz then raise it to nine hertz so we can see what difference that makes,” Bahlman said. “They don’t really cooperate that way.”

But the model does exactly what the researchers want it to do. They can control each of its movement capabilities — kinematic parameters — individually. That way they can adjust one parameter while keeping the rest constant to isolate the effects.

“We can answer questions like, ‘Does increasing wing beat frequency improve lift and what’s the energetic cost of doing that?’” Bahlman said. “We can directly measure the relationship between these kinematic parameters, aerodynamic forces, and energetics.”

Detailed experimental results from the robot will be described in future research papers, but this first paper includes some preliminary results from a few case studies.