ArticleJournal of neuroscience methods2021
Evaluating the DeepSqueak and Mouse Song Analyzer vocalization analysis systems in C57BL/6J, FVB.129, and FVB neonates.
Article in Journal of neuroscience methods, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vocalisations as a potential indicator of parturition in C57BL/6J mice.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2025Article
- 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
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCommunication is an essential behavior in mammals. Alterations in communication (neonatal crying) characterize numerous human neurodevelopmental conditions. Mice produce communicative vocalizations, known as ultrasonic vocalizations, (USVs) that can be recorded. The Mouse Song Analyzer is an automated USV analysis system while DeepSqueak is a semi-automated USV detection system.
methodWe used data from, C57BL/6J, FVB.129, and FVB neonates to compare the reliability of DeepSqueak and the Mouse Song Analyzer across various acoustic variables.
resultsWe found that both systems detected a similar quantity of USVs for FVB.129 and FVB mice. However, DeepSqueak detected more USVs for C57BL/6J mice. High correlations were found between systems for each strain. When assessing duration, Deepsqueak detected USVs of a longer duration then the Mouse Song Analyzer across all strains. A low correlation between systems for duration was found for FVB.129 mice, while high correlations were found for C57BL/6J and FVB mice. When assessing fundamental frequency, the Mouse Song Analyzer detected a higher frequency than DeepSqueak for FVB.129 mice, with no other differences present. High correlations between systems were found for C57BL/6J and FVB.129 mice, while a low correlation was found for FVB mice. We also assessed each system's sensitivity and found that Deepsqueak was able to detect softer USVs than the Mouse Song Analyzer.
conclusionsThese findings demonstrate that the strain of mouse used significantly affects the reliability of USV analysis systems. However, our data also indicates that DeepSqueak is more reliable and accurate than the Mouse Song Analyzer due to its increased sensitivity.
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.