An ant crosses the ground. A bird moves through the air. We count the same seconds — but do their visual systems resolve change in the same way? One ordinary question became a careful research journey.
WORKING PAPER TITLEA Phylogenetically Informed Reassessment of Visual Temporal Resolution and Longevity Across Species
Consider an ant moving across the ground. Its lifetime, surroundings, and sensory abilities are unlike ours. Yet both lives unfold under the same physical clock.
The curiosity was simple: do different animals resolve visual changes at different speeds, and might that be related to the length of their lives?
“A question worth testing is not the same as an answer we already know.
02 / 04
ONE CHANGING SIGNAL
DISTINCT EVENTS OR A CONTINUOUS IMPRESSION?
ILLUSTRATIVE SIGNALS — NOT A VISION TEST
CHAPTER TWO · THE CLUE
How can science measure a glimpse?
Researchers can study visual temporal resolution with flickering light. Under specific conditions, critical flicker fusion frequency (CFF) describes a limit at which flicker is no longer distinguished as flicker.
But one number can describe a behavioral threshold, a retinal signal, or simply the highest frequency an instrument tested. Those measurements are not interchangeable.
TRY A RESEARCH DECISION
A study tested a retinal response up to 55 Hz. Does this automatically prove that 55 Hz was its flicker-fusion threshold?
Choose an answer to reveal why source verification matters.
Based on a source-audit example involving gerbil ERG testing; not an animal perception test.
03 / 04
A RELATIONSHIP?LIGHTBODY SIZEANCESTRYMETHODECOLOGY
COMMON INFLUENCES MUST BE CONSIDERED
CHAPTER THREE · THE DOUBT
The pattern may not be what it seems.
A tempting idea emerges: perhaps animals with shorter lives resolve faster visual changes. But appealing ideas can be wrong — or appear true for unrelated reasons.
Body size, habitat lighting, ecology, how a study measures vision, and shared evolutionary ancestry may influence the data. Recorded maximum age has its own limitations.
So the real research question is not “Do animals live in different time?” It is: does a measurable association remain after those other influences are considered?
The first analyses raised more methodological questions than conclusions. That is why the project now checks original sources, species names, measurement conditions, and phylogenetic structure before claiming any cross-species relationship.
No final association has been established. A null result, a reversed pattern, or a clearer way to measure the traits would all move our understanding forward.
The story explains why the project exists. The sections below document what has actually been measured, checked, and left unresolved.
LATEST WORKING AUDIT · 24 OCTOBER 2026
Pass 4: evidence before conclusions
Source checks are ongoing. No final sample, final model or independent human review has been completed. These updates are separate from the earlier Zenodo Stage 13 release; that DOI is not claimed to contain this package.
280
Measurement rows · 237 raw taxon labels
117
Measurements in review · 91 labels; not approved
94
Longevity-quality candidate labels; not a final sample
The 94 longevity candidates and 91 queue labels use different filters. Every measurement remains marked not_finalized. Platypus is outside these counts.
Applied corrections and unresolved evidence
Ficedula: albicollis 138.2 → 128.1 Hz; hypoleuca 128.1 → 138.2 Hz. Original values are preserved.
Melanophila: nonvisual infrared response excluded. Sheep (2014): >80 Hz is a lower bound, not an exact threshold.
Beagles are domestic dogs, not wolves. Domestic-cat longevity is questionable. Population identity and tree placement still need reconciliation.
Four method labels corrected: painted turtle → behavioural; one cat study → cortical recording; chicken and tree shrew studies → retinal ERG. Honeybee and medaka motion endpoints remain separate.
Loggerhead and leatherback values are held for source conflicts. Tuatara 55.35 Hz matches a tested bracket midpoint, not a verified exact threshold. Raptor averages were reconstructed from individual results.
Pass 4 — pigeon: source mean 73 Hz, range 70–74 Hz. Compiled 70 Hz is retained; 73 Hz is stored separately pending a consistent statistic-selection rule.
Pass 4 — three goldfish records: exact baseline values and conditions remain unresolved. Drug-treatment arms must be separated from untreated measurements.
Working methods
Use source-verified behavioural uniform-flicker thresholds as the primary stratum; analyse retinal ERG separately. Do not pool incompatible endpoints, statistics or conditions. Exclude censored bounds from exact-response models. Missing values remain missing. After source checks and sample freeze, register the remaining plan with earlier exploration disclosed, then assess log10(CFF) against log10(longevity) and log10(body mass) across all 100 supplied trees. Model suitability depends on the final sample.
Earlier checks report 4,645 AnAge entries and 100 trees with 237 tips each. Raw AnAge data and trees are absent from this audit ZIP; these are carried-forward findings, not new verification. The exact upstream AnAge revision remains unverified.
HISTORICAL / RIWAYAT — Stage 13 and earlier source tables below use different inputs and filters. Their counts are not the current pass-4 sample. / Tabel sebelumnya memakai input dan filter berbeda, bukan sampel pass-4 saat ini.
FROM THE WORKING SOURCE AUDIT
292CFF measurement rows screenedSource audit · 21 Oct 2026
252Rows retained by source appraisal filterScreening status, not individual validation
209Distinct source phylogeny keysNot necessarily 209 confirmed species identities
42*Provisional tetrapod tree subset* Not a complete cross-animal phylogeny
01 / THE RESEARCH QUESTION
One compelling idea. Several difficult measurements.
Animals process visual changes at different rates. Does that capacity have any relationship with how long a species lives — after accounting for evolutionary ancestry, ecology, body size, and how the measurements were taken?
VARIABLE / 01
≈
Visual temporal resolution
Critical flicker fusion frequency (CFF) can estimate how rapidly a visual system resolves flicker in specified experimental conditions.
Measured with critical caveatsVARIABLE / 02
∞
Species longevity
Maximum recorded lifespan is useful but influenced by sample size, captivity, data quality, and ecology.
Not an individual's lived experienceCORE PRINCIPLE
≠
Measurement is not subjective time
CFF is not a conscious frame rate, a count of perceived moments, or proof of time dilation. The project tests covariance between measurable biological traits.
Evidence before interpretation
“We do not need to explain time itself. We need to establish what our measurements can genuinely tell us about living organisms.”
02 / THE EVIDENCE DESK
Explore the work. See what remains uncertain.
The raw frequency in a paper is not automatically a measured fusion threshold. This dashboard shows how source labels, experimental limits, and methods affect the analysis.
INTERACTIVE AUDIT
What kind of values were selected?
◌
Reporting labels for the highest retained CFF entry in each of 42 provisional tetrapod taxa. These are source labels, not verified threshold classifications.
42TAXA
!Selection by highest reported number is a sensitivity-screening device. It is not the final biological endpoint.
PRIMARY-SOURCE SPOT CHECKS
Why figures need context
↗
Select an example from the 14 targeted case checks to see why a frequency should not be silently interpreted as an organism's CFF.
02A / LATEST RESEARCH UPDATE
Stage 13. More reliable records, not bigger claims.
A separate computational extraction checked an earlier research table and exposed unresolved source mismatches. This is progress in verification, not evidence that fast vision determines lifespan.
TABLE TRANSCRIPTION MATCH34/34
Healy (2013) Table 1 rows matched by a separate PDF-coordinate extraction. Same AI-assisted workflow, not an independent human reviewer.
SOURCE FILE PROVENANCEMATCHED
Original CFF working CSV matches the published MD5 checksum for Zenodo v1 (2025). This checks file identity, not measurement validity.
STRICT ELIGIBILITY AFTER STAGES 9–133 + 1
Three behavioral species and one ERG species remain in separate strict candidate sets. Too few for the intended confirmatory phylogenetic comparison.
WORKING AUDIT / REVISION 0.423 OCT 2026 · ZENODO RELEASE
The working audit is published. Verification continues.
The replacement Zenodo archive retains the audit trail and restores 15 proposed non-destructive source corrections. These are reviewable proposals, not validated amendments to the original dataset.
Initial expert invitations have been sent. No external reviewer has been confirmed or credited.
The public candidate excludes certain third-party-derived tables pending redistribution checks; original inputs remain obtainable from their legitimate sources.
WHAT THE RECHECK FOUND
Some labels needed a second look.
Domestic catA value labeled ERG in a compiled table points to an original behavioral study; a different 75-Hz record concerns blood flow, not fusion.
Tree shrewsA behavioral experiment on T. belangeri must not be treated as the same study as ERG research on T. glis.
RatThe cited 39-Hz study is behavioral, with retinal-damage conditions requiring review; it differs from a separate verified 51-Hz ERG study.
Harp sealA source-reference number appears inconsistent. The proposed correction remains a bibliographic inference, not a confirmed source correction.
Reading the sample counts correctly
292 = CFF working-file measurement rows; 252 = rows flagged keep=y by the source appraisal; 209 = source phylogeny labels, not confirmed species identities; 42 = provisional tetrapod subset; 237 = species reported in a different published Haarlem et al. (2026) analysis, not our final validated sample. The 40 rows outside the keep flag cannot be assigned a single reason for exclusion without auditing the original appraisal criteria.
03 / OPEN RESEARCH LOG
Where the research stands today.
This is a methodological work-in-progress. Completed screening does not mean completed validation, and provisional statistical fits are not confirmatory findings.
CURRENT PRIORITY
Verify the experimental endpoint, source by source.
Recheck historical ERG figures and methods, adjudicate ambiguous source numbers, then freeze separate eligible behavioral and electrophysiological datasets before final modelling.
LAST DOCUMENTED UPDATE24 / 10 / 2026Stage 13 · Computational recheck complete; original-source and external review pending
04 / RESEARCH INTEGRITY
No shortcut from a number to a claim.
The same numeric frequency may mean direct perceptual discrimination, retinal response, equipment ceiling, model extrapolation, or an unrelated physiological response. Our audit preserves that distinction.
Retain original values, study conditions, appraisal notes, taxon names, and source references.
02
Separate distinct measurement types
Behavioral limits and electrophysiological endpoints are not automatically interchangeable.
03
Adjust for ancestry and confounders
Model phylogenetic structure, ecology, light environment, method, and body size where evidence allows.
04
Report null and uncertain results
No relationship, reversed direction, or insufficient evidence all matter scientifically.
05 / OPEN SCIENTIFIC COLLABORATION
Better evidence begins with critical review.
Document leads, taxonomic corrections, and independent methodological criticism are valuable. This is not a request for anyone to endorse the hypothesis.
↗
Find primary sources
Help locate historical ERG figures, captions, or archived methods still needing inspection.
⌁
Review species identities
Flag accepted names, synonyms, phylogeny aliases, and questionable longevity joins.
◉
Challenge the method
Offer constructive scrutiny of endpoint rules, sensitivity analyses, and phylogenetic assumptions.
Public Zenodo Stage 13 Revision 0.4 audit. Algorithmic checks are documented; external independent review remains pending.
02
Research working manuscript v0.3 (historical)
17 October 2026. Ten-species feasibility pilot and reproducibility checks. Not a confirmatory 237-species result.
03
Open methodological dependencies
Several original figures, primary threshold conditions, independent human validation, and preregistered modeling remain outstanding.
RESEARCH OUTPUTS / PUBLIC RECORDS
The working audit is now public and citable.
Our Stage 13 Revision 0.4 source-lineage audit is published on Zenodo as an unreviewed working record. An OSF preregistration remains a separate, future step.
ZENODOPUBLIC RECORD
Stage 13 · Computational source audit
Code, checked transcriptions, source decisions, input hashes and second-review protocol. The public archive is a citable, unreviewed working audit—not a completed CFF–longevity study.
The Zenodo DOI identifies an unreviewed working audit, not independent human validation, completed phylogenetic reassessment or a confirmed CFF–longevity effect.
The Stage 13 working audit is publicly archived, but its classifications and proposed corrections still require independent source review. No confirmatory CFF–longevity finding is reported.