Table 1.
Summary of statistics and counts.
For each animal, a single video captures behavior while the animal is in a single feed state (5 total videos per animal across the 5 feed states). Each video has a variable number of subsequences depending on the number of arena resets that occurred within that video. (A) Summary of the number of subsequences seen for each animal in each feed state. (B) Summary of behavior probabilities presented in section 3.2.1. (C) Summary of bout times for each behavior presented in 3.2.2. (D) Summary of transition count into each behavior by feed state. (E) Summary of miscellaneous metrics that include the average length of subsequences for each feed states, miss strike count, successful strike rate (number of successful prey captures divided by total number of prey capture attempts), number of sequences that end with prey capture, and number of escape attempts by feed state. C and E are reported as μ(STD).
Fig 1.
Examples of exhibited behaviors and behavior transitions.
(Ai) Anatomical designations that may be references in the text with examples of the behavioral actions of translation (Aii), rotation (Aiii), and deimatic fear response (Aiv). (B) The freely behaving praying mantis can transition between the bins with few experimenter-defined constraints as outlined in the text.
Fig 2.
Example raw behavioral data across all feeding states (0-, 1-, 2-, 3- and 4-fed).
(A) Color and symbol key for interpreting plots of part (B). The defined behaviors (y-axis) are plotted against frame number (x-axis). The colors red/black/blue are used to signify the different behavioral regimes. Red corresponds to the defined hunting behaviors: specific translation, specific rotation, and specific monitoring towards prey. Within the red hunting regime, strikes are denoted with circles; missed strikes are filled with yellow while successful strikes are cyan (which can only occur at the end of a subsequence as it will causes an arena reset). The grey region is the general monitoring where the praying mantis is motionless and not attentive to prey. Blue corresponds to the nonhunting behaviors: general translation, general rotation, escape attempts, grooming, and deimatic posturing. (B) Animal 6 exemplifies a time progression of behavior transitions across all feeding states. Here, the numbers to the left signify the feed states 0-, 1-, 2-, 3- and 4-fed. The behavior trace for each subsequence shows more hunting behaviors in the early feed states, 0-, 1-, 2-fed. Note that each subsequence ended in a successful strike save three. Subsequence 1 in the 2-fed state had an arena reset due to the experimenter readjusting the roach nymphs in the arena. Subsequence 3 in the 3-fed and subsequence 6 in the 4-fed state both end due to the end of the allotted 7 minutes. Each feeding state tended to have multiple subsequences of behavior.
Fig 3.
Behavioral probability and bout time analyses across all feeding states.
(A) Probability plots for hunting behaviors exhibited by feed state. (Ai) Specific monitoring shows a slight increase in the 2-fed animals with a statistical difference relative to the 4-fed state (ANOVA: p = 0.0054). Decreasing probabilities of both specific rotation (Aii) and translation (Aiii) as satiety increases (ANOVA: p <0.0001 and p = 0.0018, respectively). (Aiv) Number of missed strikes per subsequence across feeding states. Missed strikes showed a decrease for the 4-fed state (non-statistical trend; ANOVA: p = 0.78). Trends show increased probability of both general monitoring (Av), general rotations (Avi), and general translation (Avii) as satiety increased (ANOVA: p = 0.0036, p <0.0001, and p = 0.0048). For (Ai)—(Avii), N = 58, 45, 35, 24, 26 which is equal to the number of subsequences exhibited in each feed state. (B) Bout time plots for hunting behaviors exhibited by feed state. (Bi) Specific monitoring bout times were consistent across feed states (ANOVA: p = 0.79). A downward trend was seen for both specific rotation (Bii) and specific translation (Biii) across the feed states (ANOVA: p<0.0001 and p = 0.0008, respectively). An upward trend in bout time was seen for general monitoring (Biv), general rotation (Bv), general translation (Bvi), and grooming (Bvii) as the feed state increased (ANOVA: p = 0.0002, p<0.0001, p = 0.0029, p = 0.0002, respectively). For part (B), N for each behavior is reported in Section D of Table 1. Tukey pairwise comparisons were performed when ANOVA analysis produced a pValue < 0.05; Tukey pValues: *p<0.05 and **p<0.01.
Fig 4.
Transition Probability Matrix.
(A) Example organization of the square transition probability matrix. The probability, P, of transitioning out of behavior i to behavior j is held in the matrix element, i,j. For example, P3,1 represents the observed probability of the animal transitioning from behavior 3 (specific translation, ST) to behavior 1 (successful strike, SS). The color coding seen in (A) denotes the regime in which each behavior belongs (red = hunting regime behaviors; blue = nonhunting behaviors). The red shaded region of the square matrix corresponds to the probabilities of hunting behaviors further transitioning into hunting behavior. The purple regions show the transition probabilities corresponding to a regime change; this either occurs when there is a transition from a hunting behavior to a nonhunting behavior, or conversely, when transitioning from a nonhunting behavior to a hunting behavior. The blue shaded region signifies transitions that remain in the nonhunting regime. To best show many transition matrices across all feed states in a single figure, the 12 x 12 matrix for each subsequence was reorganized as a column vector. (B) The column vector holds all the probabilities from the square matrix, and is structured according the color coding seen in the figure. (C) After each transition matrix corresponding to each subsequence is converted to a column vector, all the column vectors can be concatenated into a single, 2D matrix, with the maintained shaded regions. SS = successful strike; MS = missed strike; ST = specific transition; SR = specific rotation; SM = specific monitoring; GM = general monitoring; GR = general rotation; GT = general translation; Groom = grooming; Deim = deimatic; Esc = escape.
Fig 5.
Transition probability trends across feed states.
(A) Probability heat map of transition probabilities across all feed states and organized to show trends among the different transition types: Hunting→ Hunting (i), Hunting→ Nonhunting (ii), Nonhunting→ Hunting (iii), and Nonhunting→ Nonhunting (iv). Dark blue areas correspond to very low probabilities of seeing the transition, while non-blue colors correspond to higher probabilities of state transitions occurring. (B) Quantifies the trends seen in the heat map of part (A). The probability density plots show distribution of transition probabilities that were exhibited across all feed states for each transition type: Hunting→ Hunting transition (i), Hunting→ Nonhunting transition (ii), Nonhunting→ Hunting transition (iii), and Nonhunting→ Nonhunting transition (iv). The area under each curve in the density plots is equal to one, however, how the area is distributed across the probabilities signifies the density. Probability values with higher density means higher frequency of those values in the transition probability matrices.
Fig 6.
(A) Euclidean distances between transition probability matrices for each feed state. Box plot colors (black, red, blue, orange, grey) are used to help focus trends in specific comparisons groupings, while the line is connecting each box plot mean.
For example, the black boxes are showing that each feed state exhibits an increasing Euclidean distance away from 0-fed, indicating a greater difference in transition probability profiles. The upward trend seen for the black grouping means that as satiety increases, behavior transitions progressively increased in dissimilarity when compared to the 0-fed state. All the colored groupings show similar trends, with ANOVA analysis showing a pValue < 0.05 for all groups. Tukey pairwise comparisons are shown: *p<0.05 and **p<0.01. (B) Penalty cost as a metric of sequence structure similarity. (Bi) Demonstration of PC calculation showing the cost incurred to edit a mismatch and insert/deletion. (Bii) Penalty cost from each feed state was compared to all other feed states. As was the case with (B), the connecting line in (Bii) is connecting each box plot mean. Black, red, and blue groupings show upward trends in the PC, indicating that sequence structure progressively changes as satiety increases (ANOVA analysis showing a pValue < 0.05 for these groups). Tukey pairwise comparisons are shown: *p<0.05 and **p<0.01. No statistical difference was seen in structure when comparing the 0- to 1-fed sequences, nor when comparing the 3- to 4-fed sequences.