Anthropogenic environments simultaneously modify illumination, acoustic conditions, atmospheric chemistry, and temperature, yet insect responses are commonly interpreted within single-driver literatures. This separation risks conflating changes in environmental information with changes in sensory detection, behavioral execution, life-history performance, and ecological consequence. Evidence published from 2017–2026 was evaluated using an article-specific coding scheme that distinguished environmental driver, sensory modality, direct versus signal-mediated exposure, life stage, experimental setting, behavioral endpoint, downstream consequence, and major inference boundary. Laboratory, semi-natural, field, observational, mechanistic, and factorial evidence were kept analytically distinct. Artificial light altered flight orientation, attraction, temporal activity, mate localization, development, and local abundance, with effects conditional on spectrum, intensity, temporal waveform, taxon, and endpoint. Noise and vibration affected mate searching, development, life history, signaling-associated traits, and reproductive outcomes, but realistic traffic noise, generic noise, and substrate vibration were not equivalent exposures. Chemical pollutants acted both by transforming external odor signals and by altering insect sensory or behavioral function. Temperature changed locomotion and thermoregulation directly and also modified plant-derived information used by insects. Across domains, behavioral change did not consistently imply fitness or population decline. The evidence supports treating anthropogenic sensory environments as interacting but biologically non-equivalent information regimes. A proposed synthesis therefore separates modification of environmental signals, sensory acquisition and processing, behavioral response, and subsequent ecological consequences, while requiring direct co-exposure evidence before claiming multimodal interaction.
