Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35104427›Full record

ArticleBiology letters2022

Idiosyncratic learning performance in flies.

Matthew A-Y Smith, Kyle S Honegger, Glenn Turner, Benjamin de Bivort

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology letters, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Dynamical modeling of individual sensory reactivity and habituation learning.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Reward expectations direct learning and drive operant matching inProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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

4 authors.

Matthew A-Y SmithDepartment of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology and Center for Brain Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
Kyle S HoneggerAnn and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60611, USA.
Glenn TurnerJanelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, VA 20147, USA.
Benjamin de BivortDepartment of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology and Center for Brain Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6165-7696

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Individuals vary in their innate behaviours, even when they have the same genome and have been reared in the same environment. The extent of individuality in plastic behaviours, like learning, is less well characterized. Also unknown is the extent to which intragenotypic differences in learning generalize: if an individual performs well in one assay, will it perform well in other assays? We investigated this using the fruit fly

Indexed as

Drosophila melanogasterOdorantsAnimalsAvoidance LearningConditioning, ClassicalDrosophilaLearningDrosophilageneralized learningindividualityPavlovian conditioningpersonality

Identifiers

PMID35104427
PMCPMC8807056

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.