ArticleHearing research2014
Natural variability in species-specific vocalizations constrains behavior and neural activity.
Article in Hearing research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Slow and steady: auditory features for discriminating animal vocalizations.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Time as a supervisor: temporal regularity and auditory object learning.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2023Article
- A modular high-density μECoG system on macaque vlPFC for auditory cognitive decoding.Journal of neural engineering · 2020Article
- Exploring the cerebral substrate of voice perception in primate brains.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020Review
- Functional Organization of the Ventral Auditory Pathway.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A listener's capacity to discriminate between sounds is related to the amount of acoustic variability that exists between these sounds. However, a full understanding of how this natural variability impacts neural activity and behavior is lacking. Here, we tested monkeys' ability to discriminate between different utterances of vocalizations from the same acoustic class (i.e., coos and grunts), while neural activity was simultaneously recorded in the anterolateral belt region (AL) of the auditory cortex, a brain region that is a part of a pathway that mediates auditory perception. Monkeys could discriminate between coos better than they could discriminate between grunts. We also found AL activity was more informative about different coos than different grunts. This difference could be attributed, in part, to our finding that coos had more acoustic variability than grunts. Thus, intrinsic acoustic variability constrained the discriminability of AL spike trains and the ability of rhesus monkeys to discriminate between vocalizations.
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.