ArticleThe Journal of experimental biology2026
Effects of object motion on visual acuity in honeybees.
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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Object motion is a fundamental visual cue for many animals, yet its role in modulating visual perception is not fully understood. The majority of previous studies have used stationary stimuli to investigate the visual acuity of insects such as honeybees. Here, we used a behavioural assay to investigate whether object motion influences the known bounds of bees' visual acuity. Using a Y-maze, we conducted binary choice experiments where honeybees (Apis mellifera) were trained to a stimulus and then tested with pairs of stimuli varying in shape (disc versus diamond), size and motion (stationary versus moving). When stimuli were stationary, bees perceived the change in shape only for targets that subtended visual angles >1.9 deg. However, when presented with a stationary and a moving stimulus, they consistently preferred the moving stimulus, even when both stimuli subtended angles as small as 0.44 deg. Furthermore, motion cues were found to override a learned preference for a familiar stationary shape. Most notably, bees successfully discriminated shapes at the smallest tested size of 0.44 deg when both targets were in motion, but not when they were stationary. These findings provide behavioural evidence that object motion can be a salient cue that not only drives choice but also enhances visual acuity in honeybees beyond previously established limits. This suggests that motion may facilitate the perception of fine spatial details and underscores the importance of incorporating dynamic cues when studying the sensory limits of animal vision.
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.