Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33726562›Full record

ArticleBiology letters2021

Odour boosts visual object approach in flies.

Karen Y Cheng, Mark A Frye

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology letters, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Odor tracking in flyingProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Odor tracking in flyingbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Ecological cues orchestrate concerted courtship in abioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

2 authors.

Karen Y ChengUCLA Department of Integrative Biology and Physiology, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Mark A FryeUCLA Department of Integrative Biology and Physiology, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Funding

Odor-induced neuromodulation of visual valence switch in Drosophila melanogasterF31EY029599 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI CHENG, YU-CHEN (KAREN) · 2018 to 2019
$73k
NEI NIH HHS F31 EY029599
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multisensory integration is synergistic-input from one sensory modality might modulate the behavioural response to another. Work in flies has shown that a small visual object presented in the periphery elicits innate aversive steering responses in flight, likely representing an approaching threat. Object aversion is switched to approach when paired with a plume of food odour. The 'open-loop' design of prior work facilitated the observation of changing valence. How does odour influence visual object responses when an animal has naturally active control over its visual experience? In this study, we use closed-loop feedback conditions, in which a fly's steering effort is coupled to the angular velocity of the visual stimulus, to confirm that flies steer toward or 'fixate' a long vertical stripe on the visual midline. They tend either to steer away from or 'antifixate' a small object or to disengage active visual control, which manifests as uncontrolled object 'spinning' within this experimental paradigm. Adding a plume of apple cider vinegar decreases the probability of both antifixation and spinning, while increasing the probability of frontal fixation for objects of any size, including a normally typically aversive small object.

Indexed as

Flight, AnimalOdorantsAnimalsDrosophila melanogasterVisual PerceptionDrosophilafeature detectioninsect flightmultisensoryolfaction

Identifiers

PMID33726562
PMCPMC8086958

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.