ArticleJournal of neuroscience methods2020
A comparison of the Avisoft (v.5.2) and MATLAB Mouse Song Analyzer (v.1.3) vocalization analysis systems in C57BL/6, Fmr1-FVB.129, NS-Pten-FVB, and 129 mice.
Article in Journal of neuroscience methods, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ictal vocalizations in the Scn1aEpilepsia open · 2023Article
- The Deepsqueak analysis system is as accurate, yet more efficient, than the Avisoft system across C57BL/6, FVB.129, and FVB mice.Brain disorders (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2022Article
- Capturing the songs of mice with an improved detection and classification method for ultrasonic vocalizations (BootSnap).PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Hearing, touching, and multisensory integration during mate choice.Frontiers in neural circuits · 2022Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCommunicative behaviors play a vital role in mammals and are highly relevant to human neurodevelopmental conditions. Mice produce communicative vocalizations that occur in the ultrasonic range, which are commonly analyzed within the Avisoft recording system. Fully automated programs such as the Mouse Song Analyzer in MATLAB, have been developed to analyze USVs in a shorter time period, however, no study has compared the accuracy of MATLAB to Avisoft. NEW
methodIn order to determine MATLAB's accuracy, we used data from four different mouse strains and assessed whether the total number of USVs detected was similar between systems.
resultsWe found that there was a high correlation between systems for the number of USVs emitted from C57BL/6 and NS-Pten mice however, Avisoft detected significantly more USVs than MATLAB for both strains. For Fmr1-FVB.129 and 129 mice, large correlations were observed between systems and no significant difference was present in the USVs detected. A partial correlation was run to control for the covariates: sex, age, strain, and treatment, and found that only strain substantially influences the relationship between the USVs detected in Avisoft and those detected in MATLAB. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING
methodThese findings demonstrate that there is a high degree of agreement between Avisoft and the Mouse Song Analyzer however, Avisoft does detect significantly more USVs depending on the strain assessed.
conclusionsTherefore, there are relative advantages and disadvantages with both systems that vocalization researchers should be aware of when interpreting USV results, and when using either system.
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.