$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Recently, utilizing modern techniques for the creation of artificial stimuli, such as computer animations and virtual reality, has garnered popularity in research1. These methods provide several advantages compared to classic experimental approaches with live stimulus animals1,2. Computer animation enables non-invasive manipulation of the appearance (size, color) and behavior of virtual stimulus animals used in experiments. For example, the surgical removal of the sword in male green swordtails (Xiphophorus helleri) to test mate preferences in females3 was rendered unnecessary by using computer animation in a later study on this species4. Furthermore, computer animations can create phenotypes that are only rarely encountered in nature5. Morphological features of virtual animals may even be altered beyond the natural range of that species4. Particularly, the possible systematic manipulation of behavior is one major advantage of computer animation, since it is almost impossible with live animals6,7.
Various techniques exist to date for creating computer animations. Simple two-dimensional (2D) animations typically derive from a picture of a stimulus moving in only two dimensions and can be created with common software like MS PowerPoint8 or Adobe After Effects9. Three-dimensional (3D) animations, which require more sophisticated 3D graphics modelling software, enable the stimulus to be moved in three-dimensions, increasing possibilities for realistic and complex physical movement6,7,10,11,12. Even virtual reality designs that simulate a 3D environment where live animals navigate have been used13,14. In a recent review Chouinard-Thuly et al. 2 discuss these techniques one by one and highlight advantages and disadvantages on their implementation in research, which notably depends on the scope of the study and the visual capacities of the test animal (see “Discussion”). Additionally, Powell and Rosenthal15 give advice on appropriate experimental design and what questions may be addressed by employing artificial stimuli in animal behavior research.
Since creating computer animation may be difficult and time consuming, the need for software to facilitate and standardize the process of animation design arose. In this study, we introduce the free and open-source FishSim Animation Toolchain16 (short: FishSim; https://bitbucket.org/EZLS/fish_animation_toolchain/), a multidisciplinary approach combining biology and computer science to address these needs. Similar to the earlier published tool anyFish17,18, the development of the toolchain followed the goal to provide researchers with an easy-to-use method for implementing animated 3D stimuli in experiments with fish. Our software consists of a set of tools that can be used to: (1) create 3D virtual fish (FishCreator), (2) animate the swimming paths of the virtual fish with a video game controller (FishSteering), and (3) organize and present prerecorded animations on monitors to live focal fish (FishPlayer). Our toolchain provides various features that are especially useful for testing in a binary choice situation but also applicable to other experimental designs. Moreover, the possible animation of two or more virtual fish enables the simulation of shoaling or courtship. Animations are not bound to a specific stimulus but may be replayed with other stimuli making it possible to change the appearance of a stimulus but keep its behavior constant. The open-source nature of the toolchain, as well as the fact that it is based on the robot operation system ROS (www.ros.org), provide high modularity of the system and offer nearly endless possibilities to include external feedback devices (as the controller or a tracking system) and to adapt the toolchain to one’s own needs in research. In addition to the sailfin molly, four other species are currently usable: the Atlantic molly Poecilia mexicana, the guppy Poecilia reticulata, the three-spined stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus and a cichlid Haplochromis spp. New species can be created in a 3D graphics modelling tool (e.g., Blender, www.blender.org). To exemplify the workflow with FishSim and to provide a protocol on how to conduct a mate-choice copying experiment with computer animation, we performed a case study with sailfin mollies.
Mate choice is one of the most important decisions animals make in their life history. Animals have evolved different strategies for finding the best mating partners. They may rely on personal information when evaluating potential mating partners independently, possibly according to predetermined genetic preferences for a certain phenotypic trait19, 20. However, they may also observe the mate choice of conspecifics and thereby utilize public information21. If the observer then decides to choose the same mate (or the same phenotype) as the observed conspecific — the “model” — chosen previously, this is termed mate-choice copying (hereafter abbreviated as MCC)22,23. Mate-choice copying is a form of social learning and, hence, a non-independent mate-choice strategy24, which has been observed in both vertebrates25,26,27,28,29 and invertebrates30,31,32. So far, MCC was predominantly studied in fish and is found both under laboratory conditions33,34,35,36,37,38 and in the wild39,40,41,42. Mate-choice copying is especially valuable for an individual if two or more potential mating partners are apparently similar in quality, and a “good” mate choice — in terms of maximizing fitness — is difficult to make43. The quality of a model female herself can affect whether focal females copy her choice or not44,45,46,47. Respectively, “good” or “bad” model female quality has been attributed to her being more or less experienced in mate choice, for example with regard to size and age44,45,46, or by her being a conspecific or a heterospecific47. In sailfin mollies that copy the mate choice of conspecifics39,48,49,50,51, it was found that focal females even copy the rejection of a male52. Since MCC is considered to play an important role in the evolution of phenotypic traits as well as speciation and hybridization21,23,53,54, the consequences of copying a “false” choice may be tremendous in reducing the fitness of the copier55. If an individual decides to copy the choice of another individual, it is important to evaluate if the observed model is a reliable source of information, i.e., that the model itself is making a “good” choice due to him or her being well experienced in mate choice. Here the question arises: what visual features may characterize a reliable model to copy from in sailfin molly females?
A distinct visual feature in female sailfin mollies and other Poeciliids is the gravid spot (also known as ‘anal spot’, ‘brood patch’ or ‘pregnancy spot’). This darkly pigmented area in their anal region derives from melanization of the tissue lining the ovarian sac56. The size and presence of the gravid spot are variable across conspecific females and may further individually change during the progression of ovarian cycles56,57. Gravid spots may serve to attract males and facilitate gonopodial orientation for internal insemination58 or as a means of advertising fertility59,60. Considering the link between the gravid spot and a female’s reproductive status, we predicted that the gravid spot serves as a sign of model female quality by providing information on her current reproductive state to observing focal females. We investigated two alternate hypotheses. First, if the gravid spot is a general sign for maturity, as predicted by Farr and Travis59, it denotes a presumably reliable and experienced model compared to an immature model (without the spot). Here, focal females are more likely to copy the choice of a model with a spot but not that of a model without a spot. Second, if the gravid spot marks non-receptivity due to already developing broods, as predicted by Sumner et al.60, the model is presumably less reliable since non-receptive females would be considered less choosy. In this case, focal females will not copy their choice but that of models without spot. So far, the role of the gravid spot for MCC in sailfin molly females has never been tested, nor experimentally manipulated.
We used FishSim to perform an MCC experiment by presenting virtual stimulus males and virtual model females on computer monitors instead of using live stimulus and model fish as used in the classic experimental procedure49,50,51,61. The general usability of our software has previously been validated for testing hypotheses about mate choice in sailfin mollies12. Here, we tested whether the absence or presence of a gravid spot in virtual model females affects the mate choice of observing live focal females. We first let focal females acclimate to the test tank (Figure 1.1) and let them choose between two different virtual stimulus males in a first mate-choice test (Figure 1.2). Afterwards, during the observation period, the prior non-preferred virtual male was presented together with a virtual model female (Figure 1.3). In a subsequent second mate-choice test, focal females chose again between the same males (Figure 1.4). We analyzed whether focal females had copied the mate choice of the observed model female by comparing her mate-choice decision in the first and second mate-choice test. We performed two different experimental treatments in which we visually manipulated the quality of the virtual model female. During the observation period, we either presented the prior non-preferred virtual male (1) together with a virtual model female with a gravid spot (“spot” treatment); or (2) together with a virtual model female without a gravid spot (“no spot” treatment). Additionally, in a control without any model female, we tested whether focal females chose consistently when no public information was provided.

Figure 1. General overview of the most important experimental steps for a MCC experiment using virtual fish stimuli. (1) Acclimatization period. (2) First mate-choice test: live focal female chooses between virtual stimulus males. (3) Observation period: focal female watches the prior non-preferred male together with a virtual model female with gravid spot. (4) Second mate-choice test: the focal female again chooses between virtual stimulus males. In this example, she copies the choice of the model. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.