ArticleJournal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology2012
Probing cochlear tuning and tonotopy in the tiger using otoacoustic emissions.
Article in Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- How Exceptional Is the Ear?Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2025Review
- Conditions Underlying the Appearance of Spontaneous Otoacoustic Emissions in Mammals.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2024Review
- Link between stimulus otoacoustic emissions fine structure peaks and standing wave resonances in a cochlear model.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2022Article
- Mammalian behavior and physiology converge to confirm sharper cochlear tuning in humans.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018Article
- Article
- Obtaining reliable phase-gradient delays from otoacoustic emission data.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Otoacoustic emissions (sound emitted from the ear) allow cochlear function to be probed noninvasively. The emissions evoked by pure tones, known as stimulus-frequency emissions (SFOAEs), have been shown to provide reliable estimates of peripheral frequency tuning in a variety of mammalian and non-mammalian species. Here, we apply the same methodology to explore peripheral auditory function in the largest member of the cat family, the tiger (Panthera tigris). We measured SFOAEs in 9 unique ears of 5 anesthetized tigers. The tigers, housed at the Henry Doorly Zoo (Omaha, NE), were of both sexes and ranged in age from 3 to 10 years. SFOAE phase-gradient delays are significantly longer in tigers--by approximately a factor of two above 2 kHz and even more at lower frequencies--than in domestic cats (Felis catus), a species commonly used in auditory studies. Based on correlations between tuning and delay established in other species, our results imply that cochlear tuning in the tiger is significantly sharper than in domestic cat and appears comparable to that of humans. Furthermore, the SFOAE data indicate that tigers have a larger tonotopic mapping constant (mm/octave) than domestic cats. A larger mapping constant in tiger is consistent both with auditory brainstem response thresholds (that suggest a lower upper frequency limit of hearing for the tiger than domestic cat) and with measurements of basilar-membrane length (about 1.5 times longer in the tiger than domestic cat).
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.