MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408297904 · doi:10.1051/bioconf/202516601005

Multisensory integration in Drosophila

2025· article· en· W4408297904 on OpenAlex
Shiqi Tang

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBIO Web of Conferences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrosophila (subgenus)Multisensory integrationBiologyEvolutionary biologyCommunicationComputer scienceNeurosciencePsychologyGeneticsPerception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multisensory integration (MSI) is a crucial process by which organisms combine information from multiple senses to enhance their perception and adapt to the environment. This review focuses on MSI in Drosophila, an ideal model organism due to its well-characterized neural circuitry and genetic tractability. We first describe the five main sensory modalities (vision, olfaction, gustation, mechanosensation, and thermosensation) and how they contribute to the Drosophila’s behavior. Then, we discuss the basic models of MSI, including feedback, convergence, gating, parallelism, and association. The underlying neural circuits involved in MSI, such as those related to foraging, navigation, and feeding behaviors, are also explored. Additionally, we highlight the role of neuromodulators in regulating MSI and its functional significance in enhancing information acquisition and decision-making. Overall, understanding MSI in Drosophila provides valuable insights into the mechanisms underlying complex behaviors and serves as a foundation for further studies in other organisms, ultimately helping us better understand how the nervous system processes and integrates multisensory information.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it