In a 1764 letter to the Royal Society of London, John Schlosser reported his discovery of a unique species (Schlosser, 1764). In this letter, Schlosser describes an amazing fish from Southeast Asia that can hunt insects above the water level by shooting a squirt of water from its mouth without ever missing. The archerfish, as it is called today, may not be as accurate as claimed (in fact, it misses quite often), but its behavior is nevertheless considered one of the most remarkable hunting strategies in nature. Of the many intriguing questions it raises, one remains conspicuously unresolved: how does the archerfish achieve accurate shooting despite various physical factors that affect the water jet?

This question has been asked with regard to many types of motor behavior: How do animals make accurate saccades (Shadmehr et al., 2010; Wallman and Fuchs, 1998)? How do humans and other primates make accurate reaching movements (Scheidt et al., 2005; Kluzik et al., 2008)? In many of these cases, mechanisms of adaptation that respond to error and success manage aiming and calibration of the motor system (Shadmehr et al., 2010; Donchin et al., 2012). However, the question of maintenance of accurate motor behavior in fish has rarely been asked (Tsvilling et al., 2012; Rossel et al., 2002).

This study tests whether accurate shooting in the archerfish manifests characteristics that suggest underlying adaptation mechanisms similar to those seen in other systems. That is, first, can we show gradual change in the shot direction that reduces error in response to a perturbation? Second, will there be an aftereffect after the perturbation is removed?

During a shot, the fish’s mouth is in the air, while its eyes remain well below the water level. Thus, in order to hit the target, the fish needs to compensate for multiple physical factors that affect the shot. This includes light refraction at the air-water interface, wind, and angle (Figure 1). Even the altitude of the target affects the shot due to gravitation (Rossel et al., 2002; Timmermans and Vossen, 2000).

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

The mechanism behind this ability to compensate for the different physical factors is unclear (Dill, 1977; Temple, 2007). Possible hypotheses as to the mechanism the fish uses for this correction is based on positing that the compensation is pre-programmed and hardwired through innate models of the physics. While this explanation is conceptually simple, it is hard to believe that it is sufficient, since during growth of the fish, the physical characteristics of its motor and visual systems change continuously, which would require a prewired program to take an unlikely number of highly interacting variables into account.

An opposing hypothesis posits that the archerfish does not have any innate physical knowledge and instead has a neural mechanism that develops an internal model of the current conditions through experience (Shadmehr et al., 2010). In this case, accurate shooting would depend on ongoing adaptation to consistent errors in a manner similar to the adaptation mechanisms that have been extensively investigated in the study of other vertebrate motor systems (Fernández-Ruiz and Díaz, 1999; Donchin et al., 2012; Martin et al., 1996). In this way, through a series of trials and errors, the fish would correct for misses while trying to hit the target. One advantage of an adaptation mechanism is that it can overcome the parameter differences caused by the physical changes that occur throughout the fish’s life cycle.

These two approaches may be complementary. Innate models rely on underlying neural circuits, and these neural circuits probably have mechanisms of adaptation and calibration. Thus, the question of how the archerfish corrects for refraction and other physical factors can in fact be reformulated as ‘to what extent is this ability innate, and how is it adapted’?

Indeed, the process of compensation itself can reveal aspects of the fish’s innate internal models. For instance, if compensation generalizes in an egocentric reference frame, this implies that the fish associates errors with factors connected to the body of the fish such as muscle fatigue or physical factors that do not change with reference frame such as refraction index. If the compensation generalizes allocentrically, this implies that the fish associates errors with factors connected to the environment reference frame such as wind.

One of the key concepts in investigations of the associations between vision and motor output is visuomotor adaptation (Martin et al., 1996; Fernández-Ruiz and Díaz, 1999), which is a broad term for any practice-related change or improvement in motor performance in response to a perturbation in a task based on visual input. Visuomotor adaptation returns behavior to baseline levels of performance usually within tens or a few hundred trials, depending on the particulars of the task. A classic example of visuomotor adaptation is prism adaptation (Kitazawa et al., 1995; Martin et al., 1996): a sensory-motor adaptation that occurs after the visual field has been artificially shifted laterally or vertically by a prism. During prism adaptation studies, individuals wear special prismatic goggles made of prism wedges. The individuals then engage in a perceptual motor task such as pointing to a visual target. After performing the task repeatedly, the individuals improve over time until their performance is comparable to performance before the prism goggles were worn. Visuomotor adaptation has a few defining characteristics that differentiate it from other mechanisms of error correction; namely, it is gradual, error-driven, and shows an ‘aftereffect’: a tendency for the corrected behavior to persist for some time after the perturbation has been removed (Fernández-Ruiz and Díaz, 1999).

Here, we explored visuomotor adaptation in the archerfish, based on the extensive literature studying visuomotor adaptation in humans (Izawa and Shadmehr, 2011; Shadmehr and Mussa-Ivaldi, 1994; Krakauer and Mazzoni, 2011; Fernández-Ruiz and Díaz, 1999). We examined whether the archerfish can adapt to perturbations in the environment which result in distortion to the shot by generating an airflow above the water level to mimic the perturbation to the properties of air-water refraction. We show that the archerfish is indeed capable of visuomotor adaptation, which is consistent with the hypothesis that this adaptation partially contributes to the ability of the fish to overcome the changing conditions that affects the shot.

To test the capability of the archerfish for motor adaptation, we examined its ability to adjust to a consistent perturbation generated by airflow above the water level (Figure 2A and B). First, we trained the fish to shoot at a food pellet placed on a metal net. Then, an airflow was directed such that it provided a backwind to the jet produced by the fish (Figure 2C and D) and thus generated an error in the shot (which we defined as a positive error). The direction of the error in the shot was measured manually from images taken with a high-resolution video camera (see Methods).

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Archerfish exhibit motor adaptation

In the first experiment the fish had to shoot at the target so that we could obtain a baseline for the accuracy of its shooting. Then, the airflow perturbation was turned on and the fish had to compensate using motor adaptation to the deflection of the jet (Figure 3A and B, see Methods). Finally, there was a washout period where the airflow was turned off. The error for each shot was measured.

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

Figure 3C and D presents the errors for seven different fish in representative sessions – three with the direction and four – against the direction of the airflow, and all sessions for two fish in Figure 3E and F – one in each direction. For further analysis, we used all sessions from the seven fish. We analyzed individual fish performance and the average performance of all fish (Figure 4). As expected, when the perturbation was not present, the errors were distributed around zero. This is indicated in the raw traces (Figure 4A and B) and in the average responses of the individual fish (Figure 4C and D) as well as the average response of all fish (Figure 4C and D).

Figure 4

Download asset Open asset

After the airflow was turned on, the fish adapted to this perturbation. Immediately after the introduction of the airflow perturbation, there was a significant increase in shot errors (Figure 4, Perturbation, difference between epochs HDI (highest density interval) 4.28–5.52 mm, Cohen’s d HDI 1.23–1.58). Then, over the course of several trials, the error became smaller and eventually plateaued. For all fish, the error at the beginning differed significantly from the error at the end of the perturbation period (difference between epochs HDI 3.1–4.33 mm, Cohen’s d HDI 0.86–1.25).

After the airflow perturbation stopped (Figure 4, washout), the fish exhibited an aftereffect (Figure 4, Washout, difference between epochs HDI 2.65–3.99 mm, Cohen’s d HDI 0.76–1.15). On the first trials after the airflow perturbation was removed, there was an error in the opposite direction that also decayed after several trials. This suggests that the fish generated motor commands that anticipated the perturbing airflow. The results were consistent for all seven fish in the experiment (Figure 4).

In our examination of the data, we sought out evidence of session-to-session ‘saving’ effect. However, the inherent noise within the collected data prevented us from drawing any definite conclusions.

Motor adaptation is situated in fish egocentric frame of reference

Next, we assessed whether archerfish motor adaptation is based on an egocentric or allocentric frame of reference. The experiment was designed to let the fish adapt to airflow in one direction and then force the fish to switch direction by rotating the cover with the slot above the water tank, then shoot with the airflow in the opposite direction. There are no cues about the presence or direction of the airflow perturbation above the water tank; the activation of the air blower is done outside of the fish vision field. But the fish can see the visual landmarks inside the water tank, such as filter, plant décor, and thermostat. And they demonstrate a behavioral indication of position and direction within the tank in their shooting behavior (Ben-Tov et al., 2018; Tsvilling et al., 2012; Dewenter et al., 2017); when the cover with the slot above the water tank is rotated, the fish change their body position to shoot through the slot from the new angle.

This experiment was motivated by the fact that in our experimental setup, we introduced a perturbation, thus creating an environmental condition that remained constant while the change in direction relative to the perturbation was done by the fish. We hypothesized two outcome scenarios in response to the change. In the first, the fish would perceive the shift in allocentric reference frame: the change occurring in its own position and the airflow perturbation remaining constant. The fish could use this information to correct for the true direction of the airflow and produce a smaller error.

In the second scenario, the fish would make a motor adaptation based on an egocentric reference frame: the environment changes together with the body position. In this case, the correction after the switch would present a large error since the correction for the previous perturbation would be added to the effect of the airflow. Motor adaptation in an egocentric reference frame is consistent with using the process to overcome refraction or other body-linked physical factors since they will be identical in both directions. Other physical factors, such as wind, would not be compensated correctly in an egocentric reference frame.

We put this hypothesis to the test and forced the fish to reverse the direction of their first shot while the direction of an airflow remained constant (Figure 5A). As in the first experiment, initially the response to the perturbation was a decrease in the error such that the fish hit the target toward the end of the trials (Figure 5B–E, Perturbation, difference between epochs HDI 2.47–5.05 mm, Cohen’s d HDI 0.45–0.71). Then, immediately after the change in direction, the magnitude of the error increased considerably (difference between epochs HDI 14.32–16.89 mm, Cohen’s d HDI 2.02–2.38), and adaptation took more trials than the initial response (Figure 5B–E, Reverse perturbation). Thus, in the absence of clues about the airflow direction, the fish apparently did not perceive the airflow perturbation as constant. After the switch, the fish continued to correct for the perturbation in the original direction relative to their body position.

Figure 5

Download asset Open asset

We reanalyzed the results of the experiments by building mixed-effects models, with fixed-effects factor for the epoch and random-effects grouping factor for the fish. In ANOVA test for the models, the effect of the epoch factor was found to be significant and large (Experiment 1: p<0.001, ƞ²=0.67; Experiment 2: p<0.001, ƞ²=0.31). We performed post hoc analysis of the models to compare errors in different epochs of the experiments. The significance was evaluated using t-test with Bonferroni adjustment to correct for multiple comparisons. Cohen’s d was used for effect size evaluation. In both experiments, all transitions between the stages of the experiments affected the error (Experiment 1: epochs 1–2 – p=0.001, Cohen’s d=1.46; epochs 2–4 – p=0.003, Cohen’s d=1.04; epochs 4–5 – p=0.002, Cohen’s d=1.74. Experiment 2: epochs 1–2 – p=0.005, Cohen’s d=1.55; epochs 2–4 – p=0.036, Cohen’s d=0.93; epochs 4–5 – p=0.0004, Cohen’s d=4.12; epochs 5–7 – p=0.003, Cohen’s d=2.21; epochs 7–8 – p=0.007, Cohen’s d=1.95).

Thus, we concluded that the fish engaged in motor adaptation of the shot in an egocentric reference frame. The egocentric adaptation process indicates that the fish did not use information about the unchanged nature of the perturbation; in this case airflow. Rather, the fish motor adaptation was consistent with adaptation to the air-water interface, which is isotropic in nature; i.e., it does not change with the shooting direction of the fish.

We tested the existence of the motor adaptation process in archerfish as a possible explanation for its ability to overcome changes in the environment during shooting. We introduced a perturbing airflow above the water tank on a fish trained to shoot at a target. The airflow deflected the trajectory of the water jet and as a result the fish’s water jet missed the target initially. Over the course of several trials, all the fish managed to modify their shooting direction and successfully hit the target, demonstrating their ability to adapt to changes in the environment. After the removal of the perturbation, we observed an aftereffect, where the fish made errors in the opposite direction. This result suggests the formation of internal model in the fish brain that anticipates the presence of the perturbation.

We also tested whether the distortion by the airflow perturbation was consistent with egocentric or allocentric adaptation. For instance, the distortion expected by light refraction at the interface would require egocentric adaptation where wind would require allocentric adaptation. Thus, in the second experiment, we kept the airflow constant while the fish was forced to rotate its direction of shooting. We reasoned that if the fish perceived the perturbation as constant, they would correct for the opposite direction after the position change, and we would see small errors and quick improvement. Alternatively, if the fish adapted to egocentric factors, it would not be affected by the direction of the view. Thus, there would be no need to make additional corrections after the initial adaptation. Hence, immediately after the directional switch, the fish should not change its shooting strategy and we should observe large error. As shown in Figure 5B–E, after the change in direction, there was a pronounced increase in the error, and the decrease was slower than in the initial adaptation stage. This response to the change in the environment was consistent with the response to a change in the refraction index or other egocentric factors.

It is important to note that although it has been demonstrated that other fish species possess orientation and spatial memory (Rodriguez et al., 1994; Cohen et al., 2023; Givon et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2012; Givon et al., 2023; Vinepinsky et al., 2020), there is a lack of such information regarding archerfish specifically. The knowledge about other fish provides supportive evidence that archerfish may be sensitive to their relative positions in the water tank. However, it is essential to keep in mind that the current results do not completely rule out the possibility that archerfish are unaware of changes in their body position. Instead, they may continue with previously successful actions, which could appear as an egocentric generalization.

The two most important studies of archerfish ability to compensate for the distortion to vision at the air-water interface have focused on the phenomenology of compensation. Specifically, it was shown both experimentally (Dill, 1977; Timmermans and Vossen, 2000) and theoretically (Barta and Horváth, 2003) that the archerfish needs to compensate for the large distortion in the apparent elevation. Clearly, additional insights into how the archerfish aims at the target can be obtained by observing fish when they hatch and start shooting. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no reports of breeding archerfish in the lab or observation of the emergence of shooting behavior in the wild.

Our findings are consistent with previous work in the archerfish which evaluated the adaptability of the shoot behavior. These studies showed that the archerfish can predict the future position of targets (Ben-Simon et al., 2012), the future landing position of prey (Rossel et al., 2002; Tsvilling et al., 2012), and adjust their shot force during underwater behavior (Dewenter et al., 2017). Our findings extend these results to changes in the physical environment. Since most studies have used the archerfish visual system as a model for visual processing in general (Newport et al., 2014; Newport et al., 2015; Ben-Simon et al., 2012; Mokeichev et al., 2010; Vasserman et al., 2010; Timmermans and Vossen, 2000; Temple et al., 2013; Volotsky et al., 2019; Volotsky et al., 2022; Segev et al., 2007; Ben-Tov et al., 2018; Ben-Tov et al., 2015; Gabay et al., 2013; Newport et al., 2018), the current study contributes to a better understanding of a unique trait of the archerfish: the shooting mechanism and its control.

The need to correct for physical factors such as refraction at the interface is not unique to archerfish. For example, dwarf gouramis can shoot at targets above water and need to correct for refraction in the air-water interface (Jones et al., 2021; Mann and Patterson, 2013; Miller and Jearld, 1983). Other examples in the opposite direction of the water-air interface include works on the widespread hunting behavior implemented by birds to submerge prey by diving (Machovsky Capuska et al., 2011; Machovsky-Capuska et al., 2012).

This response profile in the archerfish is also consistent with the results of multiple studies of adaptation process in mammals (Tseng et al., 2007; Shadmehr and Mussa-Ivaldi, 1994; Darmohray et al., 2019; Kitazawa et al., 1995). When the sensory feedback to the executed movement differs from the expected feedback, animals can learn to adjust the strength and the direction of their subsequent movements until they are able to perform the task successfully. For instance, in studies of prism adaptation, subjects are asked to throw a ball at a target while wearing glasses with prisms that shift their visual field horizontally. For all subjects the initial error was shown to decrease after several trials; removal of the prisms caused disorientation and error in the opposite direction that also decreased with time (Fernández-Ruiz and Díaz, 1999; Kitazawa et al., 1995). Another important category of motor adaptation studies has investigated reaching movements when subjected to either visual distortions or opposing force fields (Shadmehr et al., 2010; Kluzik et al., 2008; Shadmehr and Mussa-Ivaldi, 1994). The results with respect to the error magnitude were similar and exhibited a gradual decrease with time and the existence of an aftereffect. Finally, the study of visuomotor adaptation in mammals underscores the importance of the cerebellum as the neural site for this type of adaptation (Darmohray et al., 2019; Donchin et al., 2012; Popa et al., 2016). While the neuroanatomy of the archerfish has been mapped (Karoubi et al., 2016), it remains unclear whether the archerfish homologue is similar.

Finally, it is important to note that not all fish subjects of the current study advanced to the final test, due to the challenging nature of the task and the difficulty in maintaining the fish’s motivation throughout the test, which relies on feeding. Such challenges are common in behavioral studies. Consequently, this situation raises the question of whether all individuals are capable of solving the motor adaptation task. Addressing this question is a task for future studies.

Our work also suggests how the archerfish corrects for physical factors such as refraction through the use of motor adaptation as part of the correction process. In so doing, it sheds light on motor adaptation in vertebrates in general.

All data and code supporting the findings of this study are openly available at (https://github.com/volotsky-s/motor-adaptation-archerfish, copy archived at Volotsky, 2024). This includes raw data and the code used for analysis.

1. 1. Barta A
   2. Horváth G

   (2003) Underwater binocular imaging of aerial objects versus the position of eyes relative to the flat water surface

   Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, Image Science, and Vision 20:2370–2377.

   https://doi.org/10.1364/josaa.20.002370

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Ben-Simon A
   2. Ben-Shahar O
   3. Vasserman G
   4. Ben-Tov M
   5. Segev R

   (2012) Visual acuity in the archerfish: behavior, anatomy, and neurophysiology

   Journal of Vision 12:18.

   https://doi.org/10.1167/12.12.18

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Ben-Tov M
   2. Donchin O
   3. Ben-Shahar O
   4. Segev R

   (2015) Pop-out in visual search of moving targets in the archer fish

   Nature Communications 6:6476.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7476

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Ben-Tov M
   2. Ben-Shahar O
   3. Segev R

   (2018) What a predator can teach us about visual processing: a lesson from the archerfish

   Current Opinion in Neurobiology 52:80–87.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2018.04.001

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Cohen L
   2. Vinepinsky E
   3. Donchin O
   4. Segev R

   (2023) Boundary vector cells in the goldfish central telencephalon encode spatial information

   PLOS Biology 21:e3001747.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001747

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Darmohray DM
   2. Jacobs JR
   3. Marques HG
   4. Carey MR

   (2019) Spatial and temporal locomotor learning in mouse cerebellum

   Neuron 102:217–231.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2019.01.038

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Dewenter J
   2. Gerullis P
   3. Hecker A
   4. Schuster S

   (2017) Archerfish use their shooting technique to produce adaptive underwater jets

   The Journal of Experimental Biology 220:1019–1025.

   https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.146936

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Dill LM

   (1977) Refraction and the spitting behavior of the archerfish (Toxotes chatareus)

   Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2:169–184.

   https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00361900

   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Donchin O
   2. Rabe K
   3. Diedrichsen J
   4. Lally N
   5. Schoch B
   6. Gizewski ER
   7. Timmann D

   (2012) Cerebellar regions involved in adaptation to force field and visuomotor perturbation

   Journal of Neurophysiology 107:134–147.

   https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00007.2011

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Fernández-Ruiz J
    2. Díaz R

    (1999)

    Prism adaptation and aftereffect: specifying the properties of a procedural memory system

    Learning & Memory 6:47–53.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Gabay S
    2. Leibovich T
    3. Ben-Simon A
    4. Henik A
    5. Segev R

    (2013) Inhibition of return in the archer fish

    Nature Communications 4:1657.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2644

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Givon S
    2. Pickholtz R
    3. Pickholtz EY
    4. Ben-Shahar O
    5. Kiflawi M
    6. Segev R

    (2022) Toward naturalistic neuroscience of navigation: opportunities in coral reef fish

    Frontiers in Neural Circuits 16:895381.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fncir.2022.895381

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Givon S
    2. Altsuler-Nagar R
    3. Oring N
    4. Vinepinsky E
    5. Segev R

    (2023) Lateral and medial telencephalic pallium lesions impair spatial memory in goldfish

    Brain Research Bulletin 204:110802.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresbull.2023.110802

    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Izawa J
    2. Shadmehr R

    (2011) Learning from sensory and reward prediction errors during motor adaptation

    PLOS Computational Biology 7:e1002012.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Jones NAR
    2. Klump BC
    3. Abaurrea TM
    4. Harrower S
    5. Marr C
    6. Scott L
    7. Rendell L
    8. Webster MM

    (2021) Short-range hunters: exploring the function and constraints of water shooting in dwarf gouramis

    The Journal of Experimental Biology 224:jeb243477.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.243477

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Karoubi N
    2. Segev R
    3. Wullimann MF

    (2016) The brain of the archerfish Toxotes chatareus: a nissl-based neuroanatomical atlas and catecholaminergic/cholinergic systems

    Frontiers in Neuroanatomy 10:106.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnana.2016.00106

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Kitazawa S
    2. Kohno T
    3. Uka T

    (1995) Effects of delayed visual information on the rate and amount of prism adaptation in the human

    The Journal of Neuroscience 15:7644–7652.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.15-11-07644.1995

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Kluzik J
    2. Diedrichsen J
    3. Shadmehr R
    4. Bastian AJ

    (2008) Reach adaptation: what determines whether we learn an internal model of the tool or adapt the model of our arm?

    Journal of Neurophysiology 100:1455–1464.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.90334.2008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Krakauer JW
    2. Mazzoni P

    (2011) Human sensorimotor learning: adaptation, skill, and beyond

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology 21:636–644.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2011.06.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. Book

    1. Kruschke J

    (2014) Doing Bayesian Data Analysis: A Tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan

    Academic Press.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-405888-0.09999-2

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Lee SA
    2. Vallortigara G
    3. Ruga V
    4. Sovrano VA

    (2012) Independent effects of geometry and landmark in a spontaneous reorientation task: a study of two species of fish

    Animal Cognition 15:861–870.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-012-0512-z

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Machovsky Capuska G
    2. Vaughn R
    3. Würsig B
    4. Katzir G
    5. Raubenheimer D

    (2011) Dive strategies and foraging effort in the australasian gannet Morus serrator revealed by underwater videography

    Marine Ecology Progress Series 442:255–261.

    https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09458

    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Machovsky-Capuska GE
    2. Howland HC
    3. Raubenheimer D
    4. Vaughn-Hirshorn R
    5. Würsig B
    6. Hauber ME
    7. Katzir G

    (2012) Visual accommodation and active pursuit of prey underwater in a plunge-diving bird: the australasian gannet

    Proceedings. Biological Sciences 279:4118–4125.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.1519

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Mann J
    2. Patterson EM

    (2013) Tool use by aquatic animals

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 368:20120424.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0424

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Martin TA
    2. Keating JG
    3. Goodkin HP
    4. Bastian AJ
    5. Thach WT

    (1996) Throwing while looking through prisms: I: focal olivocerebellar lesions impair adaptation

    Brain 119 ( Pt 4):1183–1198.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/119.4.1183

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Miller RJ
    2. Jearld A

    (1983) Behavior and phylogeny of fishes of the genus colisa and the family belontiidae

    Behaviour 83:155–185.

    https://doi.org/10.1163/156853982X00076

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Mokeichev A
    2. Segev R
    3. Ben-Shahar O

    (2010) Orientation saliency without visual cortex and target selection in archer fish

    PNAS 107:16726–16731.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1005446107

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Newport C
    2. Wallis G
    3. Siebeck UE

    (2014) Concept learning and the use of three common psychophysical paradigms in the archerfish (Toxotes chatareus)

    Frontiers in Neural Circuits 8:39.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fncir.2014.00039

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Newport C
    2. Wallis G
    3. Siebeck UE

    (2015) Same/different abstract concept learning by archerfish (Toxotes chatareus)

    PLOS ONE 10:e0143401.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143401

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Newport C
    2. Wallis G
    3. Siebeck UE

    (2018) Object recognition in fish: accurate discrimination across novel views of an unfamiliar object category (human faces)

    Animal Behaviour 145:39–49.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2018.09.002

    • Google Scholar
31. Conference

    1. Plummer M

    (2003)

    JAGS: a program for analysis of bayesian graphical models using gibbs sampling

    Distributed Statistical Computing’ DSC 2003. pp. 1–10.

    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Popa LS
    2. Streng ML
    3. Hewitt AL
    4. Ebner TJ

    (2016) The errors of our ways: understanding error representations in cerebellar-dependent motor learning

    Cerebellum 15:93–103.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12311-015-0685-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Rodriguez F
    2. Duran E
    3. Vargas JP
    4. Torres B
    5. Salas C

    (1994) Performance of goldfish trained in allocentric and egocentric maze procedures suggests the presence of a cognitive mapping system in fishes

    Animal Learning & Behavior 22:409–420.

    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209160

    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Rossel S
    2. Corlija J
    3. Schuster S

    (2002) Predicting three-dimensional target motion: how archer fish determine where to catch their dislodged prey

    The Journal of Experimental Biology 205:3321–3326.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.205.21.3321

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Scheidt RA
    2. Conditt MA
    3. Secco EL
    4. Mussa-Ivaldi FA

    (2005) Interaction of visual and proprioceptive feedback during adaptation of human reaching movements

    Journal of Neurophysiology 93:3200–3213.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00947.2004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Schlosser JA

    (1764)

    In a Letter to Mr. Peter Collinson

    89–91, An account of a fish from Batavia, called Jaculator, In a Letter to Mr. Peter Collinson, Royal Society, 10.1098/rstl.1764.0016.

    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Segev R
    2. Schneidman E
    3. Goodhouse J
    4. Berry MJ

    (2007) Role of eye movements in the retinal code for a size discrimination task

    Journal of Neurophysiology 98:1380–1391.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00395.2007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Shadmehr R
    2. Mussa-Ivaldi FA

    (1994) Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task

    The Journal of Neuroscience 14:3208–3224.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.14-05-03208.1994

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Shadmehr R
    2. Smith MA
    3. Krakauer JW

    (2010) Error correction, sensory prediction, and adaptation in motor control

    Annual Review of Neuroscience 33:89–108.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-060909-153135

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Temple SE

    (2007) Effect of salinity on the refractive index of water: considerations for archer fish aerial vision

    Journal of Fish Biology 70:1626–1629.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2007.01432.x

    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Temple SE
    2. Manietta D
    3. Collin SP

    (2013) A comparison of behavioural (Landolt C) and anatomical estimates of visual acuity in archerfish (Toxotes chatareus)

    Vision Research 83:1–8.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2013.02.014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Timmermans PJ
    2. Vossen JM

    (2000) Prey catching in the archer fish: does the fish use a learned correction for refraction?

    Behavioural Processes 52:21–34.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0376-6357(00)00107-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Tseng YW
    2. Diedrichsen J
    3. Krakauer JW
    4. Shadmehr R
    5. Bastian AJ

    (2007) Sensory prediction errors drive cerebellum-dependent adaptation of reaching

    Journal of Neurophysiology 98:54–62.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00266.2007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Tsvilling V
    2. Donchin O
    3. Shamir M
    4. Segev R

    (2012) Archer fish fast hunting maneuver may be guided by directionally selective retinal ganglion cells

    The European Journal of Neuroscience 35:436–444.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2011.07971.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Vasserman G
    2. Shamir M
    3. Ben Simon A
    4. Segev R

    (2010) Coding “what” and “when” in the archer fish retina

    PLOS Computational Biology 6:e1000977.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000977

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Vinepinsky E
    2. Cohen L
    3. Perchik S
    4. Ben-Shahar O
    5. Donchin O
    6. Segev R

    (2020) Representation of edges, head direction, and swimming kinematics in the brain of freely-navigating fish

    Scientific Reports 10:14762.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-71217-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Volotsky S
    2. Vinepinsky E
    3. Donchin O
    4. Segev R

    (2019) Long-range neural inhibition and stimulus competition in the archerfish optic tectum

    Journal of Comparative Physiology A 205:537–552.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-019-01345-1

    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Volotsky S
    2. Ben-Shahar O
    3. Donchin O
    4. Segev R

    (2022) Recognition of natural objects in the archerfish

    The Journal of Experimental Biology 225:jeb243237.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.243237

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. Software

    1. Volotsky S

    (2024) Motor adaptation in the Archerfish, version swh:1:rev:4ccf1f07452913b4dd738fb60cbd29d65f5fd361

    Software Heritage.

    https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:478c7acedeb5ca1f2b8e1b701f351663d0dd47a3;origin=https://github.com/volotsky-s/motor-adaptation-archerfish;visit=swh:1:snp:34e2fbf348fecbbc2426368f1ae940326f8a4e74;anchor=swh:1:rev:4ccf1f07452913b4dd738fb60cbd29d65f5fd361
50. 1. Wallman J
    2. Fuchs AF

    (1998) Saccadic gain modification: visual error drives motor adaptation

    Journal of Neurophysiology 80:2405–2416.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1998.80.5.2405

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Svetlana Volotsky

   1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er Sheva, Israel
   2. School of Brain Sciences and Cognition, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er Sheva, Israel
   3. Department of Life Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er Sheva, Israel

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3086-573X

2. Opher Donchin

   1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er Sheva, Israel
   2. School of Brain Sciences and Cognition, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er Sheva, Israel

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Ronen Segev

   1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er Sheva, Israel
   2. School of Brain Sciences and Cognition, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er Sheva, Israel
   3. Department of Life Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er Sheva, Israel

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   For correspondence

   ronensgv@bgu.ac.il

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8109-1076

• 1,375

  views

• 33

  downloads

• 0

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.