Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28870284›Full record

ArticleeLife2017

Microsaccadic sampling of moving image information provides

Mikko Juusola, An Dau, Zhuoyi Song, Narendra Solanki, Diana Rien, David Jaciuch, Sidhartha Anil Dongre, Florence Blanchard, Gonzalo G de Polavieja, Roger C Hardie and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Photoreceptor recordings reveal remarkable acuity in small solitary bees compared with larger species.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Odor tracking in flyingProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Effects of object motion on visual acuity in honeybees.The Journal of experimental biology · 2026
    Article
  5. Odor tracking in flyingbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A recurrent neural circuit inbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

11 authors.

Mikko Juusola *National Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4428-5330
An Dau *Department of Biomedical Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7802-565X
Zhuoyi Song *Department of Biomedical Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9991-4053
Narendra SolankiDepartment of Biomedical Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Diana RienNational Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China.
David JaciuchDepartment of Biomedical Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Sidhartha Anil DongreDepartment of Biomedical Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2575-4362
Florence BlanchardDepartment of Biomedical Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Gonzalo G de PolaviejaChampalimaud Neuroscience Programme, Champalimaud Center for the Unknown, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5359-3426
Roger C HardieDepartment of Physiology Development and Neuroscience, Cambridge University, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5531-3264
Jouni TakaloDepartment of Biomedical Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/D001900/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/F012071/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/H013849/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/J0092531/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/M007006/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Small fly eyes should not see fine image details. Because flies exhibit saccadic visual behaviors and their compound eyes have relatively few ommatidia (sampling points), their photoreceptors would be expected to generate blurry and coarse retinal images of the world. Here we demonstrate that

Indexed as

Photic StimulationAnimalsComputer SimulationDrosophila melanogasterEye MovementsFixation, OcularModels, NeurologicalMovementPhotonsPhotoreceptor Cells, InvertebrateRetinaVision, OcularVisual Acuitycomputational biologyD. melanogasterHyperacuityinformation theoryneurosciencephotoreceptor transductionsaccadic eye movementsstochasticitysystems biologysystems modeling

Identifiers

PMID28870284
PMCPMC5584993

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.