ArticleThe Journal of experimental biology2022
Avoiding obstacles while intercepting a moving target: a miniature fly's solution.
Article in The Journal of experimental biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bio-Inspired Anisotropic On-Manifold Guidance for Bearing-Only UAV Target Localization Under No-Fly Zone Constraints.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Understanding the mechanism of facilitation in hoverfly TSDNs.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Close encounters of three kinds: impacts of leg, wing and body collisions on flight performance in carpenter bees.The Journal of experimental biology · 2023Article
- Avoiding obstacles while intercepting a moving target: a miniature fly's solution.The Journal of experimental biology · 2022Article
- Experimental identification of individual insect visual tracking delays in free flight and their effects on visual swarm patterns.PloS one · 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.
Funding
Abstract
The miniature robber fly Holcocephala fusca intercepts its targets with behaviour that is approximated by the proportional navigation guidance law. During predatory trials, we challenged the interception of H. fusca performance by placing a large object in its potential flight path. In response, H. fusca deviated from the path predicted by pure proportional navigation, but in many cases still eventually contacted the target. We show that such flight deviations can be explained as the output of two competing navigational systems: pure-proportional navigation and a simple obstacle avoidance algorithm. Obstacle avoidance by H. fusca is here described by a simple feedback loop that uses the visual expansion of the approaching obstacle to mediate the magnitude of the turning-away response. We name the integration of this steering law with proportional navigation 'combined guidance'. The results demonstrate that predatory intent does not operate a monopoly on the fly's steering when attacking a target, and that simple guidance combinations can explain obstacle avoidance during interceptive tasks.
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.