PMC

Transgenic sideslip filters. A, A statistically significant decrease in sideslip filter gain was not apparent in the control line UAS-TnT, although such a decrease was detected in the control line PCF. Both control sideslip filters exhibited wild-type dynamics. In contrast, the MB line UAS-TnT^+/−; OK107-gal4^+/− had reduced sideslip filter with slower dynamics. B, Since the MB line c320-gal4/UAS-TnT had a wild-type sideslip filter, the altered dynamics in the OK107-gal4 line may be due to expression outside the MBs. Expressing TeTxLc in single MB lobes, such as in c739-gal4 (α/β), 17d-gal4 (α/β), c305a-gal4 (α′/β′), and H24-gal4 (γ), did not much alter the overall dynamics of the sideslip response. C, The line 17d-gal4/UAS-TnT appeared to have an enhanced suppression of sideslip filter gain due to odor, and the line H24-gal4 seemed to exhibit an inverted response to odor—an increase of sideslip filter gain. D, Expressing DT with c739-gal4 and 17d-gal4 did not much affect the sideslip filter, by comparison to its effects on the respective yaw filters. E, However, the α/β and γ lobes line UAS-TnT^+/−; MB247-gal4^+/−had a greatly decreased sideslip filter, perhaps due to expression in the optic ganglia, while the line D52H-gal4; UAS-TnT was wild type. F, Neither the antennal lobe interneuron line GH298-gal4^+/−; UAS-DTI^+/− or lines expressing DT in OR lines 22a or 42b had abnormal sideslip filters. G, The line OR43b-gal4^+/−; UAS-DTI^+/− inexplicably had reduced filter gain. H, I, cAMP mutants rut1 and dnc1 both had wild-type sideslip filters (H), while for lines R, S, and S2 all had highly reduced sideslip filters (I). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. An asterisk over the filters indicates a significant difference in peak height. The numbers listed after the name of the line indicates the N in the no odor and odor conditions, respectively.

Estimation of vehicle sideslip angle by considering both KF and FG estimators for small values of the sideslip angle.

Impulse responses to sideslip obtained by cross correlation (n = 47), and mean responses to sideslip (n = 52) compared with linear predictions. (a) A white noise sequence modulated visual sideslip with no additional motion. (i) Shows the estimated linear filter, and (ii) shows 1 s of mean difference in wing beat amplitude in black, and the linear prediction in red, responding to sideslip modulated by the partial m-sequence illustrated above. (b) The same white noise sequence in sideslip with forward motion superimposed. (c) The experiment with backward motion superimposed. (d) The same again, but with perpendicular sideslip motion superimposed.

Estimation of sideslip angle.