ArticleNature communications2013
Inhibition of return in the archer fish.
Article in Nature communications, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed.
- Testing Bottom-up Cuing Effects on Target Detection and Discrimination in Bumblebees.Journal of insect behavior · 2026Article
- Towards a neuroethological approach to consciousness.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Review
- The subcortical role in executive functions: Neural mechanisms of executive inhibition in the flanker task.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2024Article
- Object-based attention requires monocular visual pathways.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2024Article
- The archerfish uses motor adaptation in shooting to correct for changing physical conditions.eLife · 2024Article
- Intracortical recordings reveal vision-to-action cortical gradients driving human exogenous attention.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Prosocial behavior in competitive fish: the case of the archerfish.Communications biology · 2023Article
- The Evolution and Future Development of Attention Networks.Journal of Intelligence · 2023Article
- Exogenous and endogenous spatial attention in crows.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Recognition of natural objects in the archerfish.The Journal of experimental biology · 2022Article
- Stimulus-driven visual attention in mice.Journal of vision · 2022Article
- The Ecological View of Selective Attention.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2022Article
- Humans, fish, spiders and bees inherited working memory and attention from their last common ancestor.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Magnitude integration in the Archerfish.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Transient perceptual enhancements resulting from selective shifts of exogenous attention in the central fovea.Current biology : CB · 2021Article
- Non-numerical strategies used by bees to solve numerical cognition tasks.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
- Categorical Signaling of the Strongest Stimulus by an Inhibitory Midbrain Nucleus.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2020Article
- Behavioral and neuronal study of inhibition of return in barn owls.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- What Neuroscientific Studies Tell Us about Inhibition of Return.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- Long-range neural inhibition and stimulus competition in the archerfish optic tectum.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inhibition of return is the inhibitory tagging of recently attended locations or objects. It was previously suggested that inhibition of return is a foraging facilitator in visual search. Inhibition of return was first discovered in humans and was demonstrated also in monkeys, yet it has never been demonstrated in non-primates. Here we report the presence of inhibition of return in the archer fish, which shoots down prey on overhanging vegetation, using squirts of water spouted from its mouth. Moreover, we find similar attentional effects for fish as for human participants. Our results show that the generation of inhibition of return does not require a fully developed cortex and strengthen the view that inhibition of return functions as a foraging facilitator.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23552072What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.