From skylight input to behavioural output: A computational model of the insect polarised light compass
Fig 10
Dealing with tilt for a variety of gating parameters.
Angular error of the expected direction of the sensor for different tilted angles and gating parameters. Black arrows show the axes; red shading shows the value of the objective function (J)—darker shading is for higher error values; red shaded points show the values of J for different sun positions; green discs show the zenith angle, θt; black dashed lines visualise this angle for any tilt direction, ϕt (red arrows). (A-F) Visualisation of the azimuthal angular error with respect to the sun position, i.e. ϵ ∈ [0, 90] and α ∈ [0, 360), for three tilting angles of the sensor—(A, D) δ ≈ 0° (θt = 90°), (B, E) δ ≈ 30° (θt = 60°), (C, F) δ ≈ 60° (θt = 30°); without [top row (A-C)] and with gating [bottom row (D-F)]. (G) Average angular error for different gating parameters. The lowest cost (green star; J = 10.47° ± 0.12°, N = 8, 500) is for ring radius θg = 40° and width (variance) σg = 13°.