Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28733816›Full record

ArticleJournal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology2017

Relative weighting of acoustic information during mating decisions in grasshoppers indicates signatures of sexual selection.

Jan Clemens, Jennifer Aufderheide, Bernhard Ronacher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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.

Jan ClemensPrinceton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Washington Road, Princeton, NJ, 08540, USA. clemensjan@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4200-8097
Jennifer AufderheideBehavioral Physiology Group, Department of Biology, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, 10115, Berlin, Germany.
Bernhard RonacherBehavioral Physiology Group, Department of Biology, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, 10115, Berlin, Germany. bernhard.ronacher@rz.hu-berlin.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The decision with whom to mate is crucial in determining an individual's fitness and is often based on the evaluation of visual or acoustic displays produced during courtship. Accordingly, the algorithms for evaluating such courtship signals are shaped by sexual selection and should reflect the expected benefits and costs of mating: signals bearing heterospecific features should be rapidly rejected, since mating would produce no fertile offspring, while signals resembling conspecific ones should be weighted proportional to mate quality. We test these hypotheses in females of the grasshopper Chorthippus biguttulus who assess males by their song, which is produced as a sequence of subunits with species and individual specific signatures. We present mixed sequences of subunits with conflicting cues and use a computational model of decision-making to infer how sensory information is weighted and integrated over the song. Consistent with our hypothesis, females do weight sensory cues according to the expected fitness benefits/costs: heterospecific subunits are weighted particularly negatively and lead to a rejection of the male early in the song. Conspecific subunits are weighted moderately, permitting a more complete evaluation of the full song. However, there exists an overall negative bias against mating, possible causes of which are discussed.

Indexed as

Auditory PerceptionDecision MakingGrasshoppersMating Preference, AnimalVocalization, AnimalAcoustic StimulationAnimalsComputer SimulationCuesFemaleModels, BiologicalAcoustic communicationComputational modellingDecision-makingMate choiceSexual selection

Identifiers

PMID28733816
PMCPMC5644699

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.