Layered control architectures in robots and vertebrates

We revieiv recent research in robotics, neuroscience, evolutionary neurobiology, and ethology with the aim of highlighting some points of agreement and convergence. Specifically, we com pare Brooks' (1986) subsumption architecture for robot control with research in neuroscience demonstrating layered control systems in vertebrate brains, and with research in ethology that emphasizes the decomposition of control into multiple, intertwined behavior systems. From this perspective we then describe interesting parallels between the subsumption architecture and the natural layered behavior system that determines defense reactions in the rat. We then consider the action selection problem for robots and vertebrates and argue that, in addition to subsumption- like conflict resolution mechanisms, the vertebrate nervous system employs specialized selection mechanisms located in a group of central brain structures termed the basal ganglia. We suggest that similar specialized switching mechanisms might be employed in layered robot control archi tectures to provide effective and flexible action selection

The parental care behaviour of Paratilapia polleni (Perciformes, Labroidei), a phylogenetically primitive cichlid from Madagascar, with a discussion of the evolution of maternal care in the family Cichlidae

The parental behaviour of the Madagascan cichlid, Paratilapia polleni , was studied in the laboratory. According to current hypotheses of phylogenetic intrarelationship for the family Cichlidae, Paratilapia is a representative of a phylogenetically primitive cichlid lineage, and as such is of particular interest in comparative evolutionary studies. Given the basal phylogenetic placement of Paratilapia it seems reasonable to expect that, if maternal participation in brood care arose within the extant Cichlidae, then the proposed plesiomorphic system of extensive male care of eggs and embryos may be retained in this taxon. This is not the case, and already by the fertilized-egg interval male and female roles in Paratilapia are strongly differentiated with the female as the primary care giver. In addition to specialized behavioural roles, a unique egg morphology and mobile egg mass is described for Paratilapia . The results of the study are discussed in the context of theories of the evolution of maternal brood care within the Cichlidae.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/42636/1/10641_2004_Article_BF00004768.pd

Genetic, abiotic and social influences on sex differentiation in cichlid fishes and the evolution of sequential hermaphroditism

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/73799/1/j.1467-2979.2005.00184.x.pd

Why do winners keep winning? Androgen mediation of winner but not loser effects in cichlid fish

Animal conflicts are influenced by social experience such that a previous winning experience increases the probability of winning the next agonistic interaction, whereas a previous losing experience has the opposite effect. Since androgens respond to social interactions, increasing in winners and decreasing in losers, we hypothesized that socially induced transient changes in androgen levels could be a causal mediator of winner/loser effects. To test this hypothesis, we staged fights between dyads of size-matched males of the Mozambique tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus). After the first contest, winners were treated with the anti-androgen cyproterone acetate and losers were supplemented with 11-ketotestosterone. Two hours after the end of the first fight, two contests were staged simultaneously between the winner of the first fight and a naive male and between the loser of first fight and another naive male. The majority (88%) of control winners also won the second interaction, whereas the majority of control losers (87%) lost their second fight, thus confirming the presence of winner/loser effects in this species. As predicted, the success of anti-androgen-treated winners in the second fight decreased significantly to chance levels (44%), but the success of androgenized losers (19%) did not show a significant increase. In summary, the treatment with anti-androgen blocks the winner effect, whereas androgen administration fails to reverse the loser effect, suggesting an involvement of androgens on the winner but not on the loser effect