Two Decapod Crustaceans,

M Janakis, S Guirges, A C Grant, I Paris, E F LoPresti, D I Speiser

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Integrative organismal biology (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

M JanakisDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina, 715 Sumter Street, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-0287-4019

S GuirgesDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina, 715 Sumter Street, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.

A C GrantDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina, 715 Sumter Street, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.

I ParisDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina, 715 Sumter Street, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.

E F LoPrestiDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina, 715 Sumter Street, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.

D I SpeiserDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina, 715 Sumter Street, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6662-3583

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gaze stabilization is important to animals because it allows them to visually differentiate between their own motion relative to their environment and the motion of objects within their environment. Animals can struggle to stabilize their gaze in environments that have a high amount of visual noise. In shallow aquatic environments, such as tidal creeks, the motion of the water's surface can create dynamic spatiotemporal fluctuations in illumination referred to as "caustic flicker." This type of visual noise can create false-motion cues. To overcome this obstacle, shallow-dwelling aquatic animals may use color or polarized cues to stabilize their gaze rather than achromatic cues. Tidal creeks are often spectrally narrow due to light absorption by suspended particles such as algae, making color vision unreliable. Instead of using achromatic or chromatic cues, we hypothesize that crabs in tidal creeks stabilize their gaze using cues that vary in their angle of linear polarization (AoLP). To ask whether crabs from tidal creeks may use AoLP cues in gaze stabilization, we investigated polarization sensitivity in the Atlantic mud crab,

Identifiers

PMID40896564

DOI10.1093/iob/obaf034

PMCPMC12395132

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.