ArticleScience advances2019
Intra- versus intergroup variance in collective behavior.
Article in Science advances, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cereblon-related mild intellectual disability disrupts response inhibition and uniformity of group-individual strategies.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Understanding collective behavior in biological systems through potential field mechanisms.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The visual stimuli attributes instrumental for collective-motion-related decision-making in locusts.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- Vision-based collective motion: A locust-inspired reductionist model.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Changes in local interaction rules during ontogeny underlie the evolution of collective behavior.iScience · 2023Article
- Challenges of mismatching timescales in longitudinal studies of collective behaviour.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Changes in local interaction rules during ontogeny underlie the evolution of collective behavior.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Visual processing and collective motion-related decision-making in desert locusts.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023Article
- A Locust-Inspired Model of Collective Marching on Rings.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Behavioral Neuroscience in the Era of Genomics: Tools and Lessons for Analyzing High-Dimensional Datasets.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Animal collective motion arises from the intricate interactions between the natural variability among individuals, and the homogenizing effect of the group, working to generate synchronization and maintain coherence. Here, these interactions were studied using marching locust nymphs under controlled laboratory settings. A novel experimental approach compared single animals, small groups, and virtual groups composed of randomly shuffled real members. We found that the locust groups developed unique, group-specific behavioral characteristics, reflected in large intergroup and small intragroup variance (compared with the shuffled groups). Behavioral features that differed between single animals and groups, but not between group types, were classified as essential for swarm formation. Comparison with Markov chain models showed that individual tendencies and the interaction network among animals dictate the group characteristics. Deciphering the bidirectional interactions between individual and group properties is essential for understanding the swarm phenomenon and predicting large-scale swarm behaviors.
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.