Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31030219›Full record

ArticleJournal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology2019

A broad filter between call frequency and peripheral auditory sensitivity in northern grasshopper mice (Onychomys leucogaster).

Dana M Green, Tucker Scolman, O'neil W Guthrie, Bret Pasch

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology, 2019. 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
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Can you hear me? House sparrow auditory processing differs across an urbanization gradient.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Hearing ability of prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster).The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dana M GreenDepartment of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, 617 S. Beaver Street, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011, USA. dmg358@nau.edu.
Tucker ScolmanDepartment of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, 617 S. Beaver Street, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011, USA.
O'neil W GuthrieCell and Molecular Pathology Laboratory, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorder, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011, USA.
Bret PaschDepartment of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, 617 S. Beaver Street, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011, USA.
Northern Arizona University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acoustic communication is a fundamental component of mate and competitor recognition in a variety of taxa and requires animals to detect and differentiate among acoustic stimuli (Bradbury and Vehrencamp in Principles of animal communication, 2nd edn., Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, 2011). The matched filter hypothesis predicts a correspondence between peripheral auditory tuning of receivers and properties of species-specific acoustic signals, but few studies have assessed this relationship in rodents. We recorded vocalizations and measured auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) in northern grasshopper mice (Onychomys leucogaster), a species that produces long-distance calls to advertise their presence to rivals and potential mates. ABR data indicate the highest sensitivity (28.33 ± 9.07 dB SPL re: 20 μPa) at 10 kHz, roughly corresponding to the fundamental frequency (11.6 ± 0.63 kHz) of long-distance calls produced by conspecifics. However, the frequency range of peripheral auditory sensitivity was broad (8-24 kHz), indicating the potential to detect both the harmonics of conspecific calls and vocalizations of sympatric heterospecifics. Our findings provide support for the matched filter hypothesis extended to include other ecologically relevant stimuli. Our study contributes important baseline information about the sensory ecology of a unique rodent to the study of sound perception.

Indexed as

AnimalsAuditory ThresholdEvoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain StemMiceVocalization, AnimalAcoustic communicationAuditory brainstem responseMatched filterOnychomys

Identifiers

PMID31030219
OpenAlexW2941653291

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.