ArticleJournal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology2014
Responses of a pair of flying locusts to lateral looming visual stimuli.
Article in Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We presented a pair of locusts flying loosely tethered with laterally looming discs. Two experiments tested whether looming-evoked flight behaviour was affected by the presence (1) or relative position (2) of a conspecific. We recorded: the type of behavioural response, motion within 6 degrees of freedom, behavioural onset time and duration, distance between individuals and relative direction of motion. Response distributions of the locust furthest from the stimulus (L1) were not affected by the presence or relative position of a conspecific, whereas distributions of the closer locust (L2) were affected by its position relative to the stimulus. Motion tracks of L1 were affected by the presence of L2, which generated relatively robust responses directed forward and away from the stimulus. Translational and rotational motion of L1 differed across treatments in both experiments, whereas L2 motion was less sensitive to the presence or position of a conspecific. The start and duration of the behaviour were invariant to the presence or position of a conspecific and locust pairs maintained a fixed distance during responses to looming. Results suggest that looming-evoked behaviour is influenced by visual cues from a conspecific in the vicinity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24817250What 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.