Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42740631›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of experimental biology2026

Song recognition in Floridian Ormia ochracea reflects multidimensional temporal tuning.

Lauren J Bitner, Jimena A Dominguez, Luke Bemish, Quang Vu, Julia F Morgan, David A Gray, Andrew C Mason, Norman Lee

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

8 authors.

Lauren J BitnerDepartment of Biology, St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN 55057, USA.ORCID 0009-0001-9865-6889
Jimena A DominguezDepartment of Biology, St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN 55057, USA.ORCID 0009-0007-6658-7085
Luke BemishDepartment of Biology, St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN 55057, USA.ORCID 0009-0006-8214-8050
Quang VuDepartment of Biology, St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN 55057, USA.ORCID 0009-0005-8367-0943
Julia F MorganDepartment of Biology, St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN 55057, USA.
David A GrayDepartment of Biology, California State University Northridge, Northridge, CA 91330, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4439-561X
Andrew C MasonDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Toronto Scarborough, Scarborough, ON, Canada, M1C 1A4.ORCID 0000-0001-7719-8500
Norman LeeDepartment of Biology, St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN 55057, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6198-710X

Funding

National Science Foundation IOS 2144831Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Counsel of Canada 2020-05946St. Olaf College
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acoustic communication signals often contain a complex temporal structure, yet how this temporal structure contributes to signal recognition is poorly understood, particularly in eavesdropping receivers. The parasitoid fly Ormia ochracea localises host crickets by eavesdropping on their calling songs. In Florida, preferred host songs consist of sound pulses repeated at ∼50 pulses s-1, and flies exhibit matching preferences. However, it is unclear whether this preference reflects sensitivity to individual temporal parameters or to derived temporal relationships that emerge from their combination. We independently varied pulse duration and interpulse interval across a broad stimulus space and quantified tethered-walking phonotaxis using a switch-following paradigm. Behavioural responses formed a structured tuning surface, with elevated responses for pulse durations of ∼5-15 ms across a broad range of interpulse intervals, together with high performance along a diagonal corresponding to 50 pulses s-1. Responses failed to collapse across stimuli sharing the same pulse rate or pulse period, indicating that these parameters alone do not determine recognition. Models allowing behavioural responses to vary jointly across combinations of temporal parameters substantially outperformed models based on single parameters. Although pulse duration strongly constrained recognition, behavioural responses also varied systematically with interpulse interval and could not be explained by pulse duration, interpulse interval, pulse rate, pulse period or duty cycle alone. The apparent preference of O. ochracea for ∼50 pulses s-1 therefore represents one component of a broader temporal recognition landscape rather than recognition based on pulse rate alone.

Indexed as

DipteraVocalization, AnimalAnimalsFloridaGryllidaeTime FactorsAcoustic communicationAuditory processingEavesdropperPhonotaxisTemporal pattern recognition

Identifiers

PMID42740631
PMCPMC13615676

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.