Individual recognition in a jumping spider (Phidippus regius)
- Institute of Biology, University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland
- Graduate Institute of Mind, Brain and Consciousness, Taipei Medical University, Taiwan
Figures
Figure 1
Theoretical assumptions and exemplar trials.
(a-c) Predicted spider distances for baseline (red dots), habituation (green dots), and dishabituation comparisons (blue dots). Habituation can manifest either in equal inter-spider distances (solid line) as in the baseline comparison or in an increase of distances (dashed line). What is referred to as baseline in this context is the dishabituation trial of the previous comparison (see Table 2). Distance samples are predicted to fall into distributions as shown in b. Contrasts between baseline, habituation, and dishabituation comparisons would result in distributions as shown in c. (d-f) An exemplar trial consisting of baseline, habituation, and dishabituation comparisons from the first session of trials is shown. The short-term dishabituation comparison shows a decrease of inter-spider distances, indicating increasing interest in a different individual than the previously perceived one (habituation comparison). (g-i; j-l) Two exemplar trials from the third session of Experiment 2 are shown, where a presentation of an individual novel and unseen across the three experimental sessions triggered a great rebound in interest (i,l, ‘Dishabituation - habituation’). (d, g, j) Note that in all upper quadrants, the same spider is used for baseline, habituation, and dishabituation comparisons, while in the lower quadrants, the baseline and habituation involve one individual, and a different (novel) spider is presented in the dishabituation comparison.
Figure 2 with 4 supplements
The relative change in distance between pairs of individuals, upon being confronted with the same individual as in the preceding trial (habituation trial; red discs) or a different individual from the individual in the preceding trial (dishabituation trial; blue discs).
Each panel refers to an experiment (panel a. for Experiment 1; panel b. for Experiment 2), consisting of three sessions of trials. The dependent data is shown as the proportion of time spent at a given distance binned into 4 equally spaced bins. The x-axis labels refer to the proportional distances from the transparent acrylic sheet, ranging from ’proximal’ to ’distal’; the y-axis refers to the proportion of time spent at a given distance, that is the relative number of samples that fall into a given bin. Discs show the mean proportion across all individuals (i.e. 20 for Experiment 1; 16 for Experiment 2). The whiskers indicate the standard errors of the mean. White diamonds in the lower right subfigure b show the long-term dishabituation trials. Light blue bars indicate the side of the transparent acrylic sheet (proximal); grey bars indicate the back wall of the container (distal).
Figure 2—video 1
Exemplar dishabituation [short-term] trial from Experiment 1.
Baseline, habituation, and dishabituation trials are shown following the same conventions (baseline = red, habituation = green, dishabituation = blue). Dynamic distance distributions and proportional occupancy of bins are displayed as in Video Figures and Tables.
Figure 2—video 2
Exemplar dishabituation [short-term] trial from Experiment 1.
Baseline, habituation, and dishabituation trials are shown following the same conventions (baseline = red, habituation = green, dishabituation = blue). Dynamic distance distributions and proportional occupancy of bins are displayed as in Video Figures and Tables.
Figure 2—video 3
Exemplar dishabituation [short-term] trial from Experiment 2.
Baseline, habituation, and dishabituation trials are shown following the same conventions (baseline = red, habituation = green, dishabituation = blue). Dynamic distance distributions and proportional occupancy of bins are displayed as in Video Figures and Tables.
Figure 2—video 4
Exemplar dishabituation [long-term] trial from Experiment 2.
Baseline, habituation, and dishabituation trials are shown following the same conventions (baseline = red, habituation = green, dishabituation = blue). Dynamic distance distributions and proportional occupancy of bins are displayed as in Video Figures and Tables.
Appendix 1—figure 1
Residuals of the linear mixed-effects model.
a, d. Residuals of linear mixed-effects model 1 (a) and 2 (d). The histograms bin the residuals for each model into 100 equally-spaced containers (x-axis) and return the number of elements (y-axis) in each container. The blue lines indicate a Gaussian fit; the red lines show a kernel distribution estimate. b, e. show the residuals (y-axis) plotted against the fitted values (x-axis) for model 1 (b) and model 2 (e). c, f. Residuals of lower and upper tails are plotted against each other, showing an equal distribution in both model 1 (c) and model 2 (f).
Videos
Video 1
Exemplar dishabituation [short-term] trial from Experiment 1.
a. Baseline, habituation, and dishabituation trials are shown for a given individual (top half of the black box) with varying partner according to condition (lower half of the black box), i.e. baseline and habituation trials require an exposure to an identical partner; dishabituation trials to a different partner. Distances are indicated by a coloured dashed line (red for baseline, green for habituation, blue for dishabituation trials). The light blue lines dividing the black boxes illustrate the approximate placement of the transparent acrylic sheets. The black boxes indicate the approximate location of the walls of the containers. The exact location of walls and transparent front panels might slightly vary. The -values show the current relative distance between individuals for a given condition and -values the mean relative distance up to the current sample. The maximal distance, i.e., when both spiders are in diagonally opposite corners, is 1, the minimal distance is 0. b. The distribution of relative distances of data samples up to the current point in time is shown as proportion of time spent at a given distance according to the trial types (baseline, habituation, dishabituation). The discs indicate the bin to which the current distance values are assigned to, and, hence, dynamically change their location as the spider moves. c. Trial types are shown as subtraction from each other, such that habituation trials are contrasted with baseline trials (black line), and dishabituation trials with habituation trials (dashed black line). Similarly to b., the discs indicate to which bin the current sample is assigned. The vertical positioning of the discs indicates by their colours which trial type is more frequent at a given point, e.g., a blue disc located above a green disc indicates that for the given bin the dishabituation trial (blue disc) showed more values falling into that bin than the habituation trial (green disc) ( positive value); a green disc located above a blue disc indicates that for the given bin the habituation trial (green disc) showed more values falling into that bin than the dishabituation trial (green disc) ( negative value).
Video 2
Exemplar dishabituation [long-term] trial from Experiment 2, focusing on Individual D.
Baseline, habituation, and dishabituation trials are shown following the same conventions (baseline = red, habituation = green, dishabituation = blue). Dynamic distance distributions and proportional occupancy of bins are displayed as in Video Figures and Tables.
Video 3
Exemplar dishabituation [long-term] trial from Experiment 2, same trial as Video 2 but focusing on Individual A.
Baseline, habituation, and dishabituation trials are shown following the same conventions (baseline = red, habituation = green, dishabituation = blue). Dynamic distance distributions and proportional occupancy of bins are displayed as in Video Figures and Tables.
Tables
Table 1
Pairwise comparisons.
| Trial | Pair 1 | Pair 2 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | A - B | C - D |
| 2 | A - C | B - D |
| 3 | B - C | A - D |
Table 2
Procedure of Experiment 1.
| Trial | Pair 1 | Pair 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A - B | C - D | {Habituation} | |
| 2 | A - B | C - D | {Dishabituation} | |
| 3 | A - C | B - D | {Habituation} | |
| 4 | A - C | B - D | {Dishabituation} | |
| 5 | B - C | A - D | {Habituation} | |
| 6 | B - C | A - D | {Dishabituation} | |
| … | ||||
| 3 sessions |
Table 3
Pairwise comparisons as habituation and dishabituation trials.
| Group 1 | Group 2 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trial | Pair 1 | Pair 2 | Pair 1 | Pair 2 | ||
| 1 | A - B | C - D | E-F | G-H | {Habituation} | |
| 2 | A - B | C - D | E-F | G-H | {Dishabituation} | |
| 3 | A - C | B - D | E-G | F-H | {Habituation} | |
| 4 | A - C | B - D | E-G | F-H | {Dishabituation} | |
| 5 | B - C | A - D | F-G | E-H | {Habituation} | |
| 6 | B - C | A - D | F-G | E-H | {Dishabituation} | |
| … | ||||||
| 3 sessions | ||||||
| 7 | A-E | B-G | C-F | D-H |
Appendix 1—table 1
Results of the model investigating pairwise subtracted frequency distribution of distance values.
The table contains parameter estimates for the final model 1 based on the fixed factors ’distance’, ’session’, ’condition’, ’distance:condition’, ’distance:session:condition’, as well as the random factors ’sex’ and ’subject’.
| Estimate | SE | t-stat | DF | p-value | CI (95%) [lower,upper] | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | –0.001 | 0.01 | –0.001 | 1424 | 1 | [–0.01; 0.01] | |
| Distance | Distance 1 | 0.001 | 0.01 | 0.001 | 1424 | 1 | [–0.02; 0.02] |
| Distance 2 | 0.001 | 0.01 | 0.001 | 1424 | 1 | [–0.02; 0.02] | |
| Distance 3 | –0.001 | 0.01 | –0.001 | 1424 | 1 | [–0.02; 0.02] | |
| (against Distance 4) | |||||||
| Session | Session 1 | 0.001 | 0.01 | 0.001 | 1424 | 1 | [–0.01; 0.01] |
| Session 2 | 0.001 | 0.01 | 0.001 | 1424 | 1 | [–0.01; 0.01] | |
| (against Session 3) | |||||||
| Condition | Condition 1 | 0.001 | 0.01 | 0.001 | 1424 | 1 | [–0.01; 0.01] |
| (against Condition 2) | |||||||
| Distance x Condition | Distance 1: Condition 1 | –0.07 | 0.01 | –7.90 | 1424 | 0.001 | [–0.08; –0.05] |
| Distance 2: Condition 1 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 4.16 | 1424 | 0.001 | [0.02; 0.05] | |
| Distance 3: Condition 1 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 2.06 | 1424 | 0.05 | [0.01; 0.03] | |
| (against Distance 4 and Condition 2) | |||||||
| Distance x Session x Condition | Distance 1: Session 1: Condition 1 | –0.04 | 0.01 | –3.14 | 1424 | 0.01 | [–0.06; –0.01] |
| Distance 2: Session 1: Condition 1 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 3.41 | 1424 | 0.001 | [0.02; 0.06] | |
| Distance 3: Session 1: Condition 1 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.27 | 1424 | 0.78 | [–0.02; 0.02] | |
| Distance 1: Session 2: Condition 1 | –0.02 | 0.01 | –1.71 | 1424 | 0.08 | [–0.04; 0.01] | |
| Distance 2: Session 2: Condition 1 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.42 | 1424 | 0.67 | [–0.02; 0.03] | |
| Distance 3: Session 2: Condition 1 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 1.50 | 1424 | 0.13 | [–0.01; 0.04] | |
| (against Distance 4, Session 3 and Condition 2) |
Appendix 1—table 2
Results of the model investigating pairwise subtracted frequency distribution of distance values.
The table contains parameter estimates for the final model 2 based on the fixed factors ’distance’, ’session’, ’condition’, ’distance:condition’, ’distance:session:condition’, as well as the random factors ’sex’ and ’subject’.
| Estimate | SE | t-stat | DF | p-value | CI (95%) [lower, upper] | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1136 | 1 | [–0.01; 0.01] | |
| Distance | Distance 1 | –0.01 | 0.01 | –0.01 | 1136 | 1 | [–0.02; 0.02] |
| Distance 2 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1136 | 1 | [–0.02; 0.02] | |
| Distance 3 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1136 | 1 | [–0.02; 0.02] | |
| (against Distance 4) | |||||||
| Session | Session 1 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1136 | 1 | [–0.02; 0.02] |
| Session 2 | –0.01 | 0.01 | –0.01 | 1136 | 1 | [–0.02; 0.02] | |
| (against Session 3) | |||||||
| Condition | Condition 1 | –0.01 | 0.01 | –0.01 | 1136 | 1 | [–0.01; 0.01] |
| (against Condition 2) | |||||||
| Distance x Condition | Distance 1: Condition 1 | –0.06 | 0.01 | –5.14 | 1136 | 0.001 | [–0.09; –0.04] |
| Distance 2: Condition 1 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 3.32 | 1136 | 0.001 | [0.02; 0.07] | |
| Distance 3: Condition 1 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.30 | 1136 | 0.77 | [–0.02; 0.03] | |
| (against Distance 4 and Condition 2) | |||||||
| Distance x Session x Condition | Distance 1: Session 1: Condition 1 | –0.01 | 0.02 | –0.55 | 1136 | 0.58 | [–0.04; 0.02] |
| Distance 2: Session 1: Condition 1 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 1.41 | 1136 | 0.16 | [–0.01; 0.06] | |
| Distance 3: Session 1: Condition 1 | –0.01 | 0.02 | –0.77 | 1136 | 0.44 | [–0.05; 0.02] | |
| Distance 1: Session 2: Condition 1 | –0.02 | 0.02 | –1.09 | 1136 | 0.28 | [–0.05; 0.02] | |
| Distance 2: Session 2: Condition 1 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.37 | 1136 | 0.71 | [–0.03; 0.04] | |
| Distance 3: Session 2: Condition 1 | –0.01 | 0.02 | –0.31 | 1136 | 0.75 | [–0.04; 0.03] | |
| (against Distance 4, Session 3 and Condition 2) |
Additional files
Download links
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Individual recognition in a jumping spider (Phidippus regius)
eLife 13:RP97146.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.97146.3
