The new rule is represented in a way that allows immediate generalization.
(A) Idea for generalization tests that are possible because training to the ‘deflected’ trajectories (Fig. 3) was only for one level of target height. When faced with a larger than training height, fish would only be able to turn to the corresponding impact point P if they had acquired a more general rule of how to connect input (height, direction, speed) to the rewarding turn. Had they only substituted those input-output experiences that were no longer rewarded, then they should still use the previously rewarded input-output relations and turn to the ballistic impact point A (red, see text). Had they substituted the old input-output relation for all height levels with the trained new ones, then they should turn to point B (blue, see text) that would be appropriate for the training height. (B, C) When the fish were shown the deflected trajectories at larger (B) or lower (C) height than experienced during training, then already their first turns minimized the errors to the VIPs that are appropriate for the new rule at the untrained new height level with no indication that errors would initially be large and then decrease. (D, E) Closer analysis, using cumulative density functions (CDFs), for the errors made to the predicted points based on hypotheses introduced in (A), both for the larger (D) and for the lower (E) height (both n=30). (F) Evidence that learning the new rule had not used prior assumptions on target size. Errors of the turns made in the first 30 tests in which absolute target size was more than three-fold (13 mm) than the target size (4 mm) encountered throughout the training to the new rule. (G) CDFs of the first 30 tests with a low target speed (1.425 m/s) that the fish never encountered during training to the new rule. Again, the fish immediately chose turns to minimize the error to the predicted VIP based on the new rule but not the error to the points predicted by hypotheses A and B.