ReviewJournal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO2017
Comparative Auditory Neuroscience: Understanding the Evolution and Function of Ears.
Review in Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 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
39 citing papers in PubMed, 89 citations in OpenAlex.
- Auditory perceptual maps in humans and mice share common structures and predict perceptual decisions in discrimination learning.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- Detection, communication, and individual identification with deep audio embeddings: A case study with North Atlantic right whales.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Evolutionary tuning of an auditory transduction channel.Current biology : CB · 2026Article
- Ontogenetic Changes in the Endocast and Endosseous Labyrinth of the Siamese Freshwater Crocodile (Zoological studies · 2026Article
- One Biology and the Status of Humans.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
- Cracking the Valence Code: Patterned Facial Kinematics and Neural Signatures of Emotional Expressions in Mice.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Comparative genomics sheds light on mammalian and avian gene regulation and phenotypic evolution.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Size, not phylogeny, explains the morphology of the endosseous labyrinth in the crown clade Crocodylia.Journal of anatomy · 2025Article
- Understanding speech in "noise" or free energy minimization in the soundscapes of the anthropocene.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Biological relevance and methodological implications of unexpected hearing thresholds in a diving bird.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Conditions Underlying the Appearance of Spontaneous Otoacoustic Emissions in Mammals.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2024Review
- Revisiting the Chicken Auditory Brainstem Response: Frequency Specificity, Threshold Sensitivity, and Cross Species Comparison.Neuroscience insights · 2024Article
- First photon-counting detector computed tomography in the living crocodile: a 3D-Imaging study with special reference to amphibious hearing.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2024Article
- Central projections of auditory nerve fibers in the western rat snake (Pantherophis obsoletus).The Journal of comparative neurology · 2023Article
- Accelerated Evolution Analysis Uncovers PKNOX2 as a Key Transcription Factor in the Mammalian Cochlea.Molecular biology and evolution · 2023Article
- Craniodental anatomy in Permian-Jurassic Cynodontia and Mammaliaformes (Synapsida, Therapsida) as a gateway to defining mammalian soft tissue and behavioural traits.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Review
- The continued importance of comparative auditory research to modern scientific discovery.Hearing research · 2023Review
- A parametric blueprint for optimum cochlear outer hair cell design.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2023Article
- Otoacoustic Emissions in Non-Mammals.Audiology research · 2022Review
- Hearing loss genes reveal patterns of adaptive evolution at the coding and non-coding levels in mammals.BMC biology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Comparative auditory studies make it possible both to understand the origins of modern ears and the factors underlying the similarities and differences in their performance. After all lineages of land vertebrates had independently evolved tympanic middle ears in the early Mesozoic era, the subsequent tens of millions of years led to the hearing organ of lizards, birds, and mammals becoming larger and their upper frequency limits higher. In extant species, lizard papillae remained relatively small (<2 mm), but avian papillae attained a maximum length of 11 mm, with the highest frequencies in both groups near 12 kHz. Hearing-organ sizes in modern mammals vary more than tenfold, up to >70 mm (made possible by coiling), as do their upper frequency limits (from 12 to >200 kHz). The auditory organs of the three amniote groups differ characteristically in their cellular structure, but their hearing sensitivity and frequency selectivity within their respective hearing ranges hardly differ. In the immediate primate ancestors of humans, the cochlea became larger and lowered its upper frequency limit. Modern humans show an unusual trend in frequency selectivity as a function of frequency. It is conceivable that the frequency selectivity patterns in humans were influenced in their evolution by the development of speech.
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.