ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2020
Identifying cues for tone-in-noise detection using decision variable correlation in the budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus).
Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Formant-frequency encoding in the inferior colliculus of awake rabbit: Physiological and model responses.Hearing research · 2026Article
- Duration effects on detection cues in simultaneous masking: Analysis using decision variable correlationa).The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2025Article
- Cues for tone-in-noise detection: Evidence from constant-stimuli and adaptive approaches.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2025Article
- Normal behavioral discrimination of envelope statistics in budgerigars with kainate-induced cochlear synaptopathy.Hearing research · 2024Article
- Histological Correlates of Auditory Nerve Injury from Kainic Acid in the Budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus).Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2023Article
- Mechanisms of masking by Schroeder-phase harmonic tone complexes in the budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus).Hearing research · 2023Article
- Animal models of hidden hearing loss: Does auditory-nerve-fiber loss cause real-world listening difficulties?Molecular and cellular neurosciences · 2022Review
- Midbrain-Level Neural Correlates of Behavioral Tone-in-Noise Detection: Dependence on Energy and Envelope Cues.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2021Article
- Effects of Kainic Acid-Induced Auditory Nerve Damage on Envelope-Following Responses in the Budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus).Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2021Article
- Normal Tone-In-Noise Sensitivity in Trained Budgerigars despite Substantial Auditory-Nerve Injury: No Evidence of Hidden Hearing Loss.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2021Article
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
Abstract
Previous studies evaluated cues for masked tone detection using reproducible noise waveforms. Human results founded on this approach suggest that tone detection is based on combined energy and envelope (ENV) cues, but detection cues in nonhuman species are less clear. Decision variable correlation (DVC) was used to evaluate tone-in-noise detection cues in the budgerigar, an avian species with human-like behavioral sensitivity to many complex sounds. DVC quantifies a model's ability to predict trial-by-trial variance in behavioral responses. Budgerigars were behaviorally conditioned to detect 500-Hz tones in wideband (WB; 100-3000 Hz) and narrowband (NB; 452-552 Hz) noise. Behavioral responses were obtained using a single-interval, two-alternative discrimination task and two-down, one-up adaptive tracking procedures. Tone-detection thresholds in WB noise were higher than human thresholds, putatively due to broader peripheral frequency tuning, whereas NB thresholds were within ∼1 dB of human results. Budgerigar average hit and false-alarm rates across noise waveforms were consistent, highly correlated across subjects, and correlated to human results. Trial-by-trial behavioral results in NB noise were best explained by a model combining energy and ENV cues. In contrast, WB results were better predicted by ENV-based or multiple-channel energy detector models. These results suggest that budgerigars and humans use similar cues for tone-in-noise detection.
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.