Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40352625›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2025

Motion After-Effects Induced by Dynamic Illumination in Crab Vision.

Christian Drerup, James E Herbert-Read, Martin J How

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Christian DrerupDepartment of Zoology University of Cambridge Cambridge UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6912-6379
James E Herbert-ReadDepartment of Zoology University of Cambridge Cambridge UK.
Martin J HowSchool of Biological Sciences University of Bristol Bristol UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Motion detection is an elementary aspect of most animal visual systems. However, many environments are prone to background motion, which might disrupt the ability of visual systems to detect relevant motion cues. While in humans, background motion can disrupt the detection of visual cues even after the moving background component has ceased, it remains unknown whether natural forms of background motion might also affect other animal visual systems. Here, we test whether prior exposure to naturally occurring 'caustics', a form of dynamically moving light patterns commonly found in shallow aquatic environments, can have a persisting effect on an animal's motion detection abilities even after the caustic exposure has stopped. To do this, we established the response probability of the shore crab

Indexed as

background motionCarcinus maenascausticssensory ecology

Identifiers

PMID40352625
PMCPMC12065077

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.