ArticleRoyal Society open science2018
Discrepancies in the spiking threshold and frequency sensitivity of nocturnal moths explainable by biases in the canonical auditory stimulation method.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2018. 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
The auditory stimulation method used in experiments on moth A cell(s) is generally believed to be adequate to characterize the encoding of bat echolocation signals. The stimulation method hosts, though, several biases. Their compounded effects can explain a range of discrepancies between the reported electrophysiological recordings and significantly alter the current interpretation. To test the hypothesis that the bias may significantly alter our current understanding of the moth's auditory transducer characteristics, papers using the same auditory stimulation method and reporting on either spiking threshold or spiking activity of the moth's A cells were analysed. The consistency of the reported data was assessed. A range of corrections issued from best practices and theoretical background were applied to the data in an attempt to re-interpret the data. We found that it is not possible to apply
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.