Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41717675›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of experimental biology2026

Predation via motion parallax in one of two gleaning insects.

Sergio Rossoni, Mary E Sumner, Doekele G Stavenga, Samuel T Fabian, Jack A Supple, Paloma T Gonzalez-Bellido

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of experimental biology, 2026. 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.

Sergio RossoniDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0709-9173
Mary E SumnerDepartment of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 2EG, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8759-1031
Doekele G StavengaGroningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen 9747 AG, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2518-6177
Samuel T FabianDepartment of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 2EG, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0366-7236
Jack A SuppleDepartment of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 2EG, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5429-2120
Paloma T Gonzalez-BellidoDepartment of Ecology, Evolution and Behaviour, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN 55108, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2201-991X

Funding

Air Force Office of Scientific Research FA8655-23-1-7049Air Force Office of Scientific Research FA9550-15-1-0188Air Force Office of Scientific Research FA9550-18-1-0339Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/M011194/1University of SussexWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A predator's survival is highly dependent on correctly deciding whether to attack potential prey. Pursuit predators, for example, can estimate the size of a moving target from the ratio between its angular speed and size. Such heuristic rules are not available, however, when ambushing stationary prey. Here, we investigated how pixie robber flies (Psilonyx annulatus) and damselflies (Ischnura posita) hunt stationary prey using different sensory strategies, relating to their marked differences in eye morphology. We show that pixie robber flies assess prey using whole-body translational movements. During this assessment, the prey is outside the pixie robber fly's stereopsis range, yet attacks are launched from a distance dictated by absolute, not angular, prey size. These findings suggest that pixie robber flies use motion parallax to infer three-dimensional cues, such as prey distance and/or size, before attacking. Motion parallax may be particularly suitable for pixie robber flies as they hunt in cluttered, low-lighting conditions and have a small size, making it difficult for potential prey to detect their movement, even in close proximity. Damselflies probably rely on alternative processes to assess prey, as translational movements are absent in the assessment phase.

Indexed as

DipteraMotion PerceptionOdonataPredatory BehaviorAnimalsCuesActive visionDamselflyDepth perceptionOptical trade-offPeeringRobber fly

Identifiers

PMID41717675
PMCPMC13035275

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.