ArticleJournal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology2017
The effects of stimulus parameters on auditory evoked potentials of Carassius auratus.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Whole-brain responses to sound are easily measured through auditory evoked potentials (AEP), but it is unclear how differences in experimental parameters affect these responses. The effect of varying parameters is especially unclear in fish studies, the majority of which use simple sound types and then extrapolate to natural conditions. The current study investigated AEPs in goldfish (Carassius auratus) using sounds of different durations (5, 10, and 20 ms) and frequencies (200, 500, 600 and 700 Hz) to test stimulus effects on latency and thresholds. We quantified differences in latency and threshold in comparison to a 10-ms test tone, a duration often used in AEP fish studies. Both response latency and threshold were significantly affected by stimulus duration, with latency patterning suggesting that AEP fires coincident with a decrease in stimulus strength. Response latency was also significantly affected by presentation frequency. These results show that stimulus type has important effects on AEP measures of hearing and call for clearer standards across different measures of AEP. Duration effects also suggest that AEP measures represent summed responses of duration-detecting neural circuit, but more effort is needed to understand the neural drivers of this commonly used technique.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28836038What 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.