ArticleJournal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology2014
Influence of double stimulation on sound-localization behavior in barn owls.
Article in Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The barn owls' Minimum Audible Angle.PloS one · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Barn owls do not immediately approach a source after they hear a sound, but wait for a second sound before they strike. This represents a gain in striking behavior by avoiding responses to random incidents. However, the first stimulus is also expected to change the threshold for perceiving the subsequent second sound, thus possibly introducing some costs. We mimicked this situation in a behavioral double-stimulus paradigm utilizing saccadic head turns of owls. The first stimulus served as an adapter, was presented in frontal space, and did not elicit a head turn. The second stimulus, emitted from a peripheral source, elicited the head turn. The time interval between both stimuli was varied. Data obtained with double stimulation were compared with data collected with a single stimulus from the same positions as the second stimulus in the double-stimulus paradigm. Sound-localization performance was quantified by the response latency, accuracy, and precision of the head turns. Response latency was increased with double stimuli, while accuracy and precision were decreased. The effect depended on the inter-stimulus interval. These results suggest that waiting for a second stimulus may indeed impose costs on sound localization by adaptation and this reduces the gain obtained by waiting for a second stimulus.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25352361What 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.