Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35622402›Full record

ArticleeLife2022

Unique neural coding of crucial versus irrelevant plant odors in a hawkmoth.

Sonja Bisch-Knaden, Michelle A Rafter, Markus Knaden, Bill S Hansson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2022. 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. Article
  2. Neuroethology on the move with butterflies and moths.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2026
    Article
  3. Emerging tools to advance neuroethology in butterflies and moths.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Neuron synchronization analyzed through spatial-temporal attention.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  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

4 authors.

Sonja Bisch-KnadenMax-Planck-Institute for Chemical Ecology, Department of Evolutionary Neuroethology, Jena, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3424-8376
Michelle A RafterCSIRO Health and Biosecurity, Dutton Park Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5180-0062
Markus KnadenMax-Planck-Institute for Chemical Ecology, Department of Evolutionary Neuroethology, Jena, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6710-1071
Bill S HanssonMax-Planck-Institute for Chemical Ecology, Department of Evolutionary Neuroethology, Jena, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4811-1223

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The sense of smell is pivotal for nocturnal moths to locate feeding and oviposition sites. However, these crucial resources are often rare and their bouquets are intermingled with volatiles emanating from surrounding 'background' plants. Here, we asked if the olfactory system of female hawkmoths,

Indexed as

LepidopteraManducaAnimalsFemaleLarvaOdorantsSmellecologyManduca sextaneural codingneuroscienceolfactionplant headspace

Identifiers

PMID35622402
PMCPMC9142141

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.