ArticlePloS one2021
Collective action or individual choice: Spontaneity and individuality contribute to decision-making in Drosophila.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A memory transcriptome time course reveals essential long-term memory transcription factors.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Precise Quantification of Behavioral Individuality From 80 Million Decisions Across 183,000 Flies.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our own unique character traits make our behavior consistent and define our individuality. Yet, this consistency does not entail that we behave repetitively like machines. Like humans, animals also combine personality traits with spontaneity to produce adaptive behavior: consistent, but not fully predictable. Here, we study an iconically rigid behavioral trait, insect phototaxis, that nevertheless also contains both components of individuality and spontaneity. In a light/dark T-maze, approximately 70% of a group of Drosophila fruit flies choose the bright arm of the T-Maze, while the remaining 30% walk into the dark. Taking the photopositive and the photonegative subgroups and re-testing them reveals the spontaneous component: a similar 70-30 distribution emerges in each of the two subgroups. Increasing the number of choices to ten choices, reveals the individuality component: flies with an extremely negative series of first choices were more likely to show photonegative behavior in subsequent choices and vice versa. General behavioral traits, independent of light/dark preference, contributed to the development of this individuality. The interaction of individuality and spontaneity together explains why group averages, even for such seemingly stereotypical behaviors, are poor predictors of individual choices.
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.