ArticleJournal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology2019
Adaptation in the auditory system of a beluga whale: effect of adapting sound parameters.
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. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effects of adapting sounds (pip trains or pure tones) on auditory evoked potentials (the rate following response, RFR) were investigated in a beluga whale. During RFR acquisition, adapting signals lasting 128 ms each were alternated with test signals lasting 16 ms each; the test signal levels varied randomly. Adapting signals were trains of cosine-enveloped tone pips or pure tones. Pip rate varied with the envelope cosine cycle maintained at 0.125 of pip intervals and the cosine rise-fall time maintained at 0.0625 of pip intervals. Adapting signals shifted the amplitude-level function upward compared to the baseline (no adapting signal) function. The higher the adapting signal level was, the bigger the shift in the amplitude-level function was. The slower the pips were in the adapting signal, the smaller the adaptation effect was. A train of pips with a 0.0625-ms rise-fall time and 125 dB SPL shifted the function by 35-40 dB, whereas a train of pips with a 1-ms rise-fall time or a pure tone with the same SPL shifted the function by approximately 15 dB. The difference between the "fast" and "slow" adapting signals is supposed to be associated with their abilities to stimulate the auditory system in odontocetes.
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.