ArticleThe Journal of experimental biology2026
Song recognition in Floridian Ormia ochracea reflects multidimensional temporal tuning.
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
8 authors.
Funding
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
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.