A visual efference copy-based navigation algorithm in Drosophila for complex visual environments

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
The manuscript "Drosophila Visuomotor Integration: An Integrative Model and Behavioral Evidence of Visual Efference Copy" provides an integrative model of the visuomotor control in Drosophila melanogaster. This model presents an experimentally derived model based on visually evoked wingbeat pattern recordings of three strategically selected visual stimulus types with well-established behavioral response characteristics. By testing variations of these models, the authors demonstrate that the virtual model behavior can recapitulate the recorded wing beat behavioral results and those recorded by others for these specific stimuli when presented individually. Yet, the novelty of this study and their model is that it allows predictions for natural visual scenes in which multiple visual stimuli occur simultaneously and may have opposite or enhancing effects on behavior. Testing three models that would allow interactions of these visual modalities, the authors show that using a visual efference copy signal allows visual streams to interact, replicating behavior recorded when multiple stimuli are presented simultaneously. Importantly, they validated the prediction of this model in real flies using magnetically tethered flies, e.g., presenting moving bars with varying backgrounds. In conclusion, the presented manuscript presents a commendable effort in developing and demonstrating the validity of a mixture model that allows predictions of the behavior of Drosophila in natural visual environments.

Strengths:
Overall, the manuscript is well-structured and clear in its presentation, and the modeling and experimental research are methodically conducted and illustrated in visually appealing and easy-to-understand figures and their captions.

The manuscript employs a thorough, logical approach, combining computational modeling with experimental behavioral validation using magnetically tethered flies. This iterative integration of simulation and empirical behavioral evidence enhances the credibility of the findings.

The associated code base is well documented and readily produces all figures in the document.

Suggestions:
However, while the experiments provide evidence for the use of a visual efference copy, the manuscript would be even more impressive if it presented specific predictions for the neural implementation or even neurophysiological data to support this model. Or, at the very least, a thorough discussion. Nonetheless, these models and validating behavioral experiments make this a valuable contribution to the field; it is well executed and addresses a significant gap in the modeling of fly behavior and holistic understanding of visuomotor behaviors.

Here are a few points that should be addressed:
1. The biomechanics block (Figure 2) should be elaborated on, to explain its relevance to behavior and relation to the underlying neural mechanisms.
2. It is unclear how the three integrative models with different strategies were chosen or what relevance they have to neural implementation. This should be explained and/or addressed.
3. There should be a discussion of how the visual efference could be represented in the biological model and an evaluation of the plausibility and alternatives.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

It has been widely proposed that the neural circuit uses a copy of motor command, an efference copy, to cancel out self-generated sensory stimuli so that intended movement is not disturbed by the reafferent sensory inputs. However, how quantitatively such an efference copy suppresses sensory inputs is unknown. Here, Canelo et al. tried to demonstrate that an efference copy operates in an all-or-none manner and that its amplitude is independent of the amplitude of the sensory signal to be suppressed. Understanding the nature of such an efference copy is important because animals generally move during sensory processing, and the movement would devastatingly distort that without a proper correction. The manuscript is concise and written very clearly. However, experiments do not directly demonstrate if the animal indeed uses an efference copy in the presented visual paradigms and if such a signal is indeed non-scaled. As it is, it is not clear if the suppression of behavioral response to the visual background is due to the act of an efference copy (a copy of motor command) or due to an alternative, more global inhibitory mechanism, such as feedforward inhibition at the sensory level or attentional modulation. To directly uncover the nature of an efference copy, physiological experiments are necessary. If that is technically challenging, it requires finding a behavioral signature that unambiguously reports a (copy of) motor command and quantifying the nature of that behavior.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:
Canelo et al. used a combination of mathematical modeling and behavioral experiments to ask whether flies use an all-or-none EC model or a graded EC model (in which the turn amplitude is modulated by wide-field optic flow). Particularly, the authors focus on the bar-ground discrimination problem, which has received significant attention in flies over the last 50-60 years. First, they use a model by Poggio and Reichardt to model flight response to moving small-field bars and spots and wide-field gratings. They then simulate this model and compare simulation results to flight responses in a yaw-free tether and find generally good agreement. They then ask how flies may do bar-background discrimination (i.e. complex visual environment) and invoke different EC models and an additive model (balancing torque production due to background and bar movement). Using behavioral experiments and simulation supports the notion that flies use an all-or-none EC since flight turns are not influenced by the background optic flow. While the study is interesting, there are major issues with the conceptual framework.

Strengths:
- They ask a significant question related to efference copies during volitional movement.
- The methods are well detailed and the data (and statistics) are presented clearly.
- The integration of behavioral experiments and mathematical modeling of flight behavior.
- The figures are overall very clear and salient.

Weaknesses:
- Omission of saccades: While the authors ask a significant question related to the mechanism of bar-ground discrimination, they fail to integrate an essential component of the Drosophila visuomotor responses: saccades. Indeed, the Poggio and Reichardt model, which was developed almost 50 years ago, while appropriate to study body-fixed flight, has a severe limitation: it does not consider saccades. The authors identify this major issue in the Discussion by citing a recent switched, integrate-and-fire model (Mongeau & Frye, 2017). The authors admit that they "approximated" this model as a smooth pursuit movement. However, I disagree that it is an approximation; rather it is an omission of a motor program that is critical for volitional visuomotor behavior. Indeed, saccades are the main strategy by which Drosophila turn in free flight and prior to landing on an object (i.e. akin to a bar), as reported by the Dickinson group (Censi et al., van Breugel & Dickinson [not cited]). Flies appear to solve the bar-ground discrimination problem by switching between smooth movement and saccades (Mongeau & Frye, 2017; Mongeau et al., 2019 [not cited]). Thus, ignoring saccades is a major issue with the current study as it makes their model disconnected from flight behavior, which has been studied in a more natural context since the work of Poggio.

Critically, recent work showed that a group of columnar neurons (T3) appear specialized for saccadic bar tracking through integrate-and-fire computations, supporting the notion of parallel visual circuits for saccades and smooth movement (Frighetto & Frye, 2023 [not cited]).

A major theme of this work is bar fixation, yet recent work showed that in the presence of proprioceptive feedback, flies do not actually center a bar (Rimniceanu & Frye, 2023). Furthermore, the same study found that yaw-free flies do not smoothly track bars but instead generate saccades. Thus prior work is in direct conflict with the work here. This is a major issue that requires more engagement by the authors.

- Relevance of the EC model: EC-related studies by the authors linked cancellation signals to saccades (Kim et al, 2014 & 2017). Puzzlingly, the authors applied an EC model to smooth movement, when the authors' own work showed that smooth course stabilizing flight turns do not receive cancellation signals (Fenk et al., 2021). Thus, in Fig. 4C, based on the state of the field, the efference copy signal should originate from the torque commands to initiate saccades, and not from torque to generate smooth movement. As this group previously showed, cancellation signals are quantitatively tuned to that of the expected visual input during saccades. Importantly, this tuning would be to the anticipated saccadic turn optic flow. Thus the authors' results supporting an all-or-none model appear in direct conflict with the author's previous work. Further, the addition-only model is not particularly helpful as it has been already refuted by behavioral experiments (Rimneceanu & Frye, Mongeau & Frye).

- Behavioral evidence for all-or-none EC model: The authors state "unless the stability reflex is suppressed during the flies' object evoked turns, the turns should slow down more strongly with the dense background than the sparse one". This hypothesis is based on the fact that the optomotor response magnitude is larger with a denser background, as would be predicted by an EMD model (because there are more pixels projected onto the eye). However, based on the authors' previous work, the EC should be tuned to optic flow and thus the turning velocity (or amplitude). Thus the EC need not be directly tied to the background statistics, as they claim. For instance, I think it would be important to distinguish whether a mismatch in reafferent velocity (optic flow) links to distinct turn velocities (and thus position). This would require moving the background at different velocities (co- and anti-directionally) at the onset of bar motion. Overall, there are alternative hypotheses here that need to be discussed and more fully explored (as presented by Bender & Dickinson and in work by the Maimon group).