Extended Data Fig. 3: Effects of cue shifts.

This figure shows additional details regarding the 13 flies in Fig. 4. a. Responses to cue shifts. In both these examples, the visual cue shifted while the wind did not shift. In Example 1, the EPG bump follows the shift in the visual cue, so that the offset relative to that cue is restored. In Example 2, when the visual cue shifts, the bump does not shift, and so it retains its offset relative to the wind. b. Mean bump amplitude and mean bump width (± s.e.m.) around the time of cue shifts. Cue shifts produce no significant change in bump amplitude or width (p = 0.10 for bump amplitude, p = 0.26 for bump width, 2-sided Wilcoxon signed rank tests, comparing 1 sec before vs 1 sec after a shift). c. Bump preference index for each cue shift, for each fly, with flies sorted by mean bump preference index. Each thin vertical line connects the data for 4 wind shifts (orange) and 4 visual shifts (blue) for the same fly. Thick horizontal lines show mean values for each fly. This plot reproduces data from Fig. 4e. d. Same but for the “stickiness index”. This index is a metric for how much the bump tends to follow the cue that does not shift (that is, how sticky’ the bump is). A value of +1 means that the bump sticks with the non-shifted cue, whereas a value of -1 means that the bump follows the shifted cue. There were no flies where the bump tended to prefer either the shifted cue or the non-shifted cue. Flies are sorted as in (c). e. Same but for the “behavioral preference index”. Here, -1 means the visual cue dominates the fly’s behavioral orientation, whereas +1 means the wind dominates. For example, if the wind shifts by -120° and the fly then executes a -120° turn, the index would be +1 for that trial. The mean behavioral preference index was near zero for all individuals, meaning they reoriented with equal frequency in response to visual cue shifts and wind shifts. This was true even in the flies with a strongly biased HD system (for example, Fly 1 or Fly 13).