SynthesisPloS one2022
A flashing light may not be that flashy: A systematic review on critical fusion frequencies.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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.
- Pace of ecology drives the tempo of visual perception across the animal kingdom.Nature ecology & evolution · 2026Article
- Critical flicker fusion frequency: confounders and caveats.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- The Effects of Light on Vertebrate Welfare: A Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
- From eyes' microtremors to critical flicker fusion.PloS one · 2025Article
- Through an animal's eye: the implications of diverse sensory systems in scientific experimentation.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLight pollution could represent one of the main drivers behind the current biodiversity erosion. While the effects of many light components on biodiversity have already been studied, the influence of flicker remains poorly understood. The determination of the threshold frequency at which a flickering light is perceived as continuous by a species, usually called the Critical Fusion Frequency (CFF), could thus help further identify the impacts of artificial lighting on animals.
objectiveThis review aimed at answering the following questions: what is the distribution of CFF between species? Are there differences in how flicker is perceived between taxonomic classes? Which species are more at risk of being impacted by artificial lighting flicker?
methodsCitations were extracted from three literature databases and were then screened successively on their titles, abstracts and full-texts. Included studies were critically appraised to assess their validity. All relevant data were extracted and analysed to determine the distribution of CFF in the animal kingdom and the influence of experimental designs and species traits on CFF.
resultsAt first, 4881 citations were found. Screening and critical appraisal provided 200 CFF values for 156 species. Reported values of CFF varied from a maximum of between 300 Hz and 500 Hz for the beetle Melanophila acuminata D. to a mean of 0.57 (± 0.08) Hz for the snail Lissachatina fulica B. Insects and birds had higher CFF than all other studied taxa. Irrespective of taxon, nocturnal species had lower CFF than diurnal and crepuscular ones.
conclusionsWe identified nine crepuscular and nocturnal species that could be impacted by the potential adverse effects of anthropogenic light flicker. We emphasize that there remains a huge gap in our knowledge of flicker perception by animals, which could potentially be hampering our understanding of its impacts on biodiversity, especially in key taxa like bats, nocturnal birds and insects.
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.