ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative analysis of attentional mechanisms in rice pest identification.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate detection of rice pests helps farmers take timely control measures. This study compares different attention mechanisms for rice pest detection in complex backgrounds and demonstrates that a human vision-inspired Bionic Attention (BA) mechanism outperforms most traditional attention mechanisms in this task and is applicable to all major mainstream and novel models. Bionic Attention (BA) assists the main branch in recognition by additionally labeling important features of each rice pest category and inputting the additional category labels as bionic information into the network during the input stage. This study applies Bionic Attention to dominant entity classical and novel networks, including YOLOv5s, YOLOv8n, SSD, Faster R-CNN, YOLOv9-e, and YOLOv10-X, and compares it with classical attention mechanisms such as CBAM, SE, and SimAM to verify its feasibility. Meanwhile, this study introduces more detailed evaluation metrics to assess Bionic Attention, including Classification Error, Localization Error, Cls and Loc Error, Duplicate Detection Error, Background Error, and Missed GT Error. Experimental results show that Bionic Attention improves detection performance by indirectly enhancing the loss function, allowing the model to acquire more fine-grained information during the feature extraction stage, thereby improving detection accuracy.
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.