ArticleJournal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology2019
Bats are unusually insensitive to brief low-frequency tones.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Auditory brainstem responses in the bat Carollia perspicillata: threshold calculation and relation to audiograms based on otoacoustic emission measurement.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Bats use brief calls for echolocation, suggesting that they might be more sensitive to brief sounds than non-echolocating mammals. To investigate this possibility, absolute thresholds for brief tones were determined for four species of bats: The Common vampire bat (Desmodus rotundus) and the Greater spear-nosed bat (Phyllostomus hastatus), both of which use frequency-modulated calls, the Egyptian fruit bat (Rousettus aegyptiacus), an echolocator that uses tongue-clicks rather than laryngeal calls, and the Dog-faced fruit bat (Cynopterus brachyotis), a non-echolocating species. Norway rats and a human were tested for comparison using the same acoustic stimuli. Contrary to expectations, the echolocating bats were not superior to non-echolocating mammals in detecting brief tones in the frequency range of their echolocation calls. Instead, all four species of bats were remarkably less sensitive than non-bats to brief sounds of 10 kHz and below. This implies that temporal summation in the mammalian auditory system can show large species differences, and that the detection of brief sound is likely influenced by the selective pressures on each species as well as by the physical integration of energy in the auditory system. Such species differences in function are expected to be reflected in the physiology of their auditory systems.
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.