ArticleEcology and evolution2026
Temporal Feasibility Constraints on Wingbeat-Call Synchrony in Actively Echolocating Bats.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Temporal Feasibility Constraints on Wingbeat-Call Synchrony in Actively Echolocating Bats.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Echolocating bats operate within a closed sensorimotor loop in which call emission, echo reception, sensory processing, and motor response are linked by finite propagation delays and bounded response times. Although synchrony between wingbeats and call timing is frequently observed, it remains unclear when such coordination is temporally feasible and when it must necessarily break down. Here, I develop a constraint-based framework formalising how temporal feasibility limits shape wingbeat-call coordination during active echolocation. Building on the responsivity framework, the analysis derives explicit conditions under which call emission remains phase-locked to a cyclic motor rhythm, and identifies regimes in which phase locking becomes progressively infeasible as acoustic delay shrinks and call rate rises during prey approach. Simulations across three motor-control configurations-fixed wingbeat frequency and excursion, dynamically adjusted frequency, and dynamically adjusted frequency and excursion-show that transitions from synchrony to asynchrony arise as necessary consequences of delayed feedback and bounded motor dynamics, rather than discrete changes in behavioural strategy. Increasing motor flexibility extends the synchrony-permissive range of call rates but does not eliminate the feasibility boundary. Simulation ensembles spanning biologically plausible parameter combinations confirm that regime transitions are robust and that asynchronous call phases exhibit structured clustering near the feasibility boundary. Empirical observations of transient decoupling during prey pursuit and the terminal buzz are consistent with these predicted transitions. The results identify temporal feasibility as a governing constraint on echolocation behaviour, clarify how apparent closed-loop coordination can arise without tight motor coupling, and generate testable predictions for when and why wingbeat-call synchrony must fail during prey capture.
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.