Figure 3. EBw.s activity tracks landmark orientation cues over angular rotation when these cues are in conflict.

a, In cue shift experiments, fly is in closed-loop control of stripe position until cue is abruptly shifted to new position (see Methods). b, Offset between PVA estimate and actual orientation relative to visual cue before and after cue shift. Plot compares actual offsets with those expected if EBw.s activity did not follow cue position (see Methods). N = 50 shifts (n = 6 flies), r = 0.85, p_r = 0. Fit: slope = 0.78 ± 0.07, p_slope = 0, R² = 0.72. c, In closed-loop gain change experiments, ball rotation drives movement of visual stimulus with different closed-loop gains. d, Fluorescence transients during trial with low gain of 0.6 (Fly 15 from Fig. 1j). e, Comparison of PVA estimate versus accumulated rotation of visual cue and walking rotation on ball (trial in d). Walking rotation exceeds visual cue angular rotation in this low gain trial. f, Similar to d, but with high closed-loop gain of 1.3 (Fly 3 from Fig. 1j). g, Similar to e, but with high gain (trial in f). h, Effective gain between walking rotation and PVA estimate for different closed-loop gains (r = 0.69, p_r = 0, Fit: slope = 0.85 ± 0.07, p_slope = 0, n = 172, R² = 0.48, see Methods). i, Effective gain between visual cue rotation and PVA estimate for different closed-loop gains (r = 0, p_r = 15.1×10⁻³, Fit: slope = −0.17 ± 0.07, p_slope = 0.02, n = 172, R² = 0.03, see Methods).