Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26100915›Full record

ReviewJournal of anatomy2016

Structure and function of the mammalian middle ear. II: Inferring function from structure.

Matthew J Mason

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of anatomy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. When the lung invades: a review of avian postcranial skeletal pneumaticity.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Ear morphology in two root-rat species (genus Tachyoryctes) differing in the degree of fossoriality.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2021
    Article
  18. In-air hearing in Hawaiian monk seals: implications for understanding the auditory biology of Monachinae seals.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Uncovering the secreted signals and transcription factors regulating the development of mammalian middle ear ossicles.Developmental dynamics : an official publication of the American Association of Anatomists · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Matthew J MasonDepartment of Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
University of Cambridge · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anatomists and zoologists who study middle ear morphology are often interested to know what the structure of an ear can reveal about the auditory acuity and hearing range of the animal in question. This paper represents an introduction to middle ear function targetted towards biological scientists with little experience in the field of auditory acoustics. Simple models of impedance matching are first described, based on the familiar concepts of the area and lever ratios of the middle ear. However, using the Mongolian gerbil Meriones unguiculatus as a test case, it is shown that the predictions made by such 'ideal transformer' models are generally not consistent with measurements derived from recent experimental studies. Electrical analogue models represent a better way to understand some of the complex, frequency-dependent responses of the middle ear: these have been used to model the effects of middle ear subcavities, and the possible function of the auditory ossicles as a transmission line. The concepts behind such models are explained here, again aimed at those with little background knowledge. Functional inferences based on middle ear anatomy are more likely to be valid at low frequencies. Acoustic impedance at low frequencies is dominated by compliance; expanded middle ear cavities, found in small desert mammals including gerbils, jerboas and the sengi Macroscelides, are expected to improve low-frequency sound transmission, as long as the ossicular system is not too stiff.

Indexed as

MammalsAcoustic Impedance TestsAnimalsEar, MiddleHearingModels, Biologicalcomplianceelectrical analogueideal transformerimpedance matchingimpedance transform ratiolow-frequencymiddle eartransmission line

Identifiers

PMID26100915
PMCPMC4718164
OpenAlexW1555379386

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.