ArticleScientific reports2017
Ants' navigation in an unfamiliar environment is influenced by their experience of a familiar route.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Innate visual attraction before, during and after escape from adverse substrates in carpenter ants.The Journal of experimental biology · 2025Article
- Compensation to visual impairments and behavioral plasticity in navigating ants.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Route retracing: way pointing and multiple vector memories in trail-following ants.The Journal of experimental biology · 2024Article
- Review
- Multimodal interactions in insect navigation.Animal cognition · 2020Review
- Opponent processes in visual memories: A model of attraction and repulsion in navigating insects' mushroom bodies.PLoS computational biology · 2020Article
- Terrestrial cue learning and retention during the outbound and inbound foraging trip in the desert ant, Cataglyphis velox.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2019Article
- Deep(er) Learning.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2018Article
- Early foraging life: spatial and temporal aspects of landmark learning in the ant Cataglyphis noda.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2018Article
- How to Navigate in Different Environments and Situations: Lessons From Ants.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When displaced experimentally from a food source (feeder) to unfamiliar terrain, ants run off a portion of the homeward vector or its entirety, depending on species and conditions, and then search systematically, turning in loops of ever increasing size. The Australian desert ant Melophorus bagoti runs off a smaller portion of its vector if the test site is more dissimilar to its nest area. Here we manipulated familiarity with the training route between a feeder and the ants' nest to examine its effects when the ants were displaced to a distant site from the feeder. Naïve ants that arrived at an experimentally provided feeder for the first time were compared with experienced ants that had travelled the route for two days. At the unfamiliar test site, naïve ants ran off a longer portion of their vector from path integration than did experienced ants. Naïve ants also spread out in their systematic search slower than did experienced ants. We conclude that as ants learn the views encountered on their familiar route better, they identify more readily unfamiliar views. A scene distant from their nest area may not look as unfamiliar to a naïve ant as it does to an experienced ant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.