ArticleScientific reports2018
Spatial Encoding of Translational Optic Flow in Planar Scenes by Elementary Motion Detector Arrays.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contrast independent biologically inspired translational optic flow estimation.Biological cybernetics · 2022Article
- Lidar-Based Navigation of Subterranean Environments Using Bio-Inspired Wide-Field Integration of Nearness.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Stabilizing responses to sideslip disturbances inBiology letters · 2021Article
- The effect of optic flow cues on honeybee flight control in wind.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
- Resource-efficient bio-inspired visual processing on the hexapod walking robot HECTOR.PloS one · 2020Article
- The role of optic flow pooling in insect flight control in cluttered environments.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- A Hardware-Friendly Optical Flow-Based Time-to-Collision Estimation Algorithm.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Elementary Motion Detectors (EMD) are well-established models of visual motion estimation in insects. The response of EMDs are tuned to specific temporal and spatial frequencies of the input stimuli, which matches the behavioural response of insects to wide-field image rotation, called the optomotor response. However, other behaviours, such as speed and position control, cannot be fully accounted for by EMDs because these behaviours are largely unaffected by image properties and appear to be controlled by the ratio between the flight speed and the distance to an object, defined here as relative nearness. We present a method that resolves this inconsistency by extracting an unambiguous estimate of relative nearness from the output of an EMD array. Our method is suitable for estimation of relative nearness in planar scenes such as when flying above the ground or beside large flat objects. We demonstrate closed loop control of the lateral position and forward velocity of a simulated agent flying in a corridor. This finding may explain how insects can measure relative nearness and control their flight despite the frequency tuning of EMDs. Our method also provides engineers with a relative nearness estimation technique that benefits from the low computational cost of EMDs.
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.