Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41358193›Full record

ArticleAnimal behaviour2025

Map and compass navigation: the mechanism and ontogeny of animal maps.

Joe Morford, Joe Wynn, Patrick Lewin, Paris Jaggers, Lewis Lancaster-Reeves, Adelaide Sibeaux, Oliver Padget, Tim Guilford

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal behaviour, 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

8 authors.

Joe MorfordDepartment of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Joe WynnDepartment of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Patrick LewinDepartment of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Paris JaggersDepartment of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Lewis Lancaster-ReevesDepartment of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Adelaide SibeauxDepartment of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Oliver PadgetDepartment of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Tim GuilfordDepartment of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/M011224/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Map and compass navigation, a two-step process in which animals use a map to determine goalward directions and a compass to orient in those directions, accounts for a variety of navigational behaviours across animals, from visual landmark navigation in familiar environments, to returning long distances from novel sites. However, while extensive investigation into the sensory basis of maps has implicated roles for visual, olfactory, and magnetic cues, many details of their mechanism and ontogeny are less well understood. Here, we introduce a framework that deconstructs maps into three components: (1) cues, the nature of the environmental properties that animals use to determine goalward directions; (2) structure, the organisation of information used to determine the goalward direction, distinguishing discrete and continuous map structures; and (3) implementation, encompassing strategies relating to how animals approach their goals and how animals combine multiple information sources. In some cases, inherited rules and imprinting are involved in the ontogeny of these components of map and compass navigation. However, in many instances, including those which require extrapolation of gradients or involve flexible navigation between multiple goals, extensive learning is likely required; nonetheless, how animals resolve the spatial arrangement of cues to learn maps, especially over large scales, is little understood. Mechanisms for determining vectors of self-motion, termed path integration, play an important role in map learning in mammals over relatively small spatial scales; we suggest that path integration could play a similar role in map learning in other taxa and over larger spatial scales. This would imply that path integration is more taxonomically widespread and plays a greater role in navigational learning than currently appreciated. This review helps to clarify links between disparate findings and raises questions about navigational mechanisms and ontogeny to better our understanding of map and compass navigation across taxa and scales.

Indexed as

Map and compass navigationMechanismOntogenyPath integration

Identifiers

PMID41358193
PMCPMC7618438

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.