ArticleJournal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology2021
Acoustic particle motion detection in the snapping shrimp (Alpheus richardsoni).
Article in Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Marine and Freshwater Sounds Impact Invertebrate Behavior and Physiology: A Meta-Analysis.Global change biology · 2024Pooled it
- Bioimaging marine crustacean brain: quantitative comparison of micro-CT preparations in an Alpheid snapping shrimp.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Impact of small boat sound on the listening space of Pempheris adspersa, Forsterygion lapillum, Alpheus richardsoni and Ovalipes catharus.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Boat noise alters individual behaviors but not communication between partners in a fish-shrimp mutualism.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral EcologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many crustaceans produce sounds that might be used in communication. However, little is known about sound detection in crustaceans, hindering our understanding of crustacean acoustic communication. Sound detection has been determined only for a few species, and for many species, it is unclear how sound is perceived: as particle motion or sound pressure. Snapping shrimp are amongst the loudest and most pervasive marine sound sources. They produce snaps during interactions with conspecifics, and they also interact with soniferous heterospecifics. If they can hear, then sound could facilitate key behavioral interactions. We measured the auditory sensitivity of the snapping shrimp, Alpheus richardsoni, using auditory evoked potentials in response to a shaker table that generated only particle motion and an underwater speaker that generated both particle motion and sound pressure. Auditory detection was most sensitive between 80 and 100 Hz, and auditory evoked potentials were detected up to 1500 Hz. Snapping shrimp responded to both the shaker table and the underwater speaker, demonstrating that they detect acoustic particle motion. Crushing the statocyst reduced or eliminated hearing sensitivity. We conclude that snapping shrimp detect acoustic particle motion using the statocyst, they might detect conspecifics and heterospecifics, and hearing could facilitate key behavioral interactions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34241712What 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.