Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26180205›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2015

Closed-Loop Behavioral Control Increases Coherence in the Fly Brain.

Angelique C Paulk, Leonie Kirszenblat, Yanqiong Zhou, Bruno van Swinderen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. High-Throughput Tracking of Freely MovingbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Production of adaptive movement patternsFrontiers in computational neuroscience · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Fly seizure EEG: field potential activity in theJournal of neurogenetics · 2021
    Article
  11. Visuo-Motor Feedback Modulates Neural Activities in the Medulla of the Honeybee,The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. A motion compensation treadmill for untethered wood ants (The Journal of experimental biology · 2020
    Article
  14. Oscillations in the central brain ofProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Sleep regulates visual selective attention inThe Journal of experimental biology · 2018
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Attention-like processes in insects.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Angelique C PaulkQueensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia 4072.
Leonie KirszenblatQueensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia 4072.
Yanqiong ZhouQueensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia 4072.
Bruno van SwinderenQueensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia 4072 b.vanswinderen@uq.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A crucial function of the brain is to be able to distinguish whether or not changes in the environment are caused by one's own actions. Even the smallest brains appear to be capable of making this distinction, as has been shown by closed-loop behavioral experiments in flies controlling visual stimuli in virtual reality paradigms. We questioned whether activity in the fruit fly brain is different during such closed-loop behavior, compared with passive viewing of a stimulus. To address this question, we used a procedure to record local field potential (LFP) activity across the fly brain while flies were controlling a virtual object through their movement on an air-supported ball. The virtual object was flickered at a precise frequency (7 Hz), creating a frequency tag that allowed us to track brain responses to the object while animals were behaving. Following experiments under closed-loop control, we replayed the same stimulus to the fly in open loop, such that it could no longer control the stimulus. We found identical receptive fields and similar strength of frequency tags across the brain for the virtual object under closed loop and replay. However, when comparing central versus peripheral brain regions, we found that brain responses were differentially modulated depending on whether flies were in control or not. Additionally, coherence of LFP activity in the brain increased when flies were in control, compared with replay, even if motor behavior was similar. This suggests that processes associated with closed-loop control promote temporal coordination in the insect brain. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: We show that closed-loop control of a visual stimulus promotes temporal coordination across the Drosophila brain, compared with open-loop replay of the same visual sequences. This is significant because it suggests that, to understand goal-directed behavior or visual attention in flies, it may be most informative to sample neural activity from multiple regions across the brain simultaneously, and to examine temporal relationships (e.g., coherence) between these regions.

Indexed as

Brain MappingAnalysis of VarianceAnimalsBehavior, AnimalBrainDrosophila melanogasterEvoked Potentials, VisualFemaleLocomotionPhotic StimulationVisual FieldsVisual Perceptionbehaviorclosed-loopDrosophilaelectrophysiologySSVEPvision

Identifiers

PMID26180205
PMCPMC6605338

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.