Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26993807›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO2016

Spatial Stream Segregation by Cats.

Lauren K Javier, Elizabeth A McGuire, John C Middlebrooks

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. High Spectral and Temporal Acuity in Primary Auditory Cortex of Awake Cats.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2023
    Article
  2. Informational Masking in Aging and Brain-lesioned Individuals.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Tonotopic Selectivity in Cats and Humans: Electrophysiology and Psychophysics.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2022
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Animal models for auditory streaming.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2017
    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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lauren K JavierDepartment of Neurobiology & Behavior, University of California at Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Elizabeth A McGuireCenter for Hearing Research, University of California at Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
John C MiddlebrooksDepartment of Neurobiology & Behavior, University of California at Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA. j.midd@uci.edu.
University of California, Irvine · US

Funding

CORTICAL REPRESENTATION OF AUDITORY SPACER01DC000420 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI MIDDLEBROOKS, JOHN C · 1995 to 2018
$6.5M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC000420
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Listeners can perceive interleaved sequences of sounds from two or more sources as segregated streams. In humans, physical separation of sound sources is a major factor enabling such stream segregation. Here, we examine spatial stream segregation with a psychophysical measure in domestic cats. Cats depressed a pedal to initiate a target sequence of brief sound bursts in a particular rhythm and then released the pedal when the rhythm changed. The target bursts were interleaved with a competing sequence of bursts that could differ in source location but otherwise were identical to the target bursts. This task was possible only when the sources were heard as segregated streams. When the sound bursts had broad spectra, cats could detect the rhythm change when target and competing sources were separated by as little as 9.4°. Essentially equal levels of performance were observed when frequencies were restricted to a high, 4-to-25-kHz, band in which the principal spatial cues presumably were related to sound levels. When the stimulus band was restricted from 0.4 to 1.6 kHz, leaving interaural time differences as the principal spatial cue, performance was severely degraded. The frequency sensitivity of cats in this task contrasts with that of humans, who show better spatial stream segregation with low- than with high-frequency sounds. Possible explanations for the species difference includes the smaller interaural delays available to cats due to smaller sizes of their heads and the potentially greater sound-level cues available due to the cat's frontally directed pinnae and higher audible frequency range.

Indexed as

AnimalsAuditory PerceptionAuditory ThresholdCatsCuesPerceptual MaskingSpecies SpecificityTask Performance and Analysisauditory scene analysisauditory spatial cuesbinaural hearingcocktail party effectrelease from maskingspatial hearing

Identifiers

PMID26993807
PMCPMC4854824
OpenAlexW2301550989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.