ArticleBiology letters2022
Cross-modal facilitation of auditory discrimination in a frog.
Article in Biology letters, 2022. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- How female treefrogs weigh unimodal and multimodal sexual displays in the absence and presence of noise.Current zoology · 2025Article
- Variation in sexual signals and defensive strategies elicits receiver-dependent shifts in attractiveness.The Journal of experimental biology · 2025Article
- Article
- Cross-modal facilitation of auditory discrimination in a frog.Biology letters · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stimulation in one sensory modality can affect perception in a separate modality, resulting in diverse effects including illusions in humans. This can also result in cross-modal facilitation, a process where sensory performance in one modality is improved by stimulation in another modality. For instance, a simple sound can improve performance in a visual task in both humans and cats. However, the range of contexts and underlying mechanisms that evoke such facilitation effects remain poorly understood. Here, we demonstrated cross-modal stimulation in wild-caught túngara frogs, a species with well-studied acoustic preferences in females. We first identified that a combined visual and seismic cue (vocal sac movement and water ripple) was behaviourally relevant for females choosing between two courtship calls in a phonotaxis assay. We then found that this combined cross-modal stimulus rescued a species-typical acoustic preference in the presence of background noise that otherwise abolished the preference. These results highlight how cross-modal stimulation can prime attention in receivers to improve performance during decision-making. With this, we provide the foundation for future work uncovering the processes and conditions that promote cross-modal facilitation effects.
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.