Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36620451›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2022

Local prothoracic auditory neurons in Ensifera.

Ali Cillov, Andreas Stumpner

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Neuronal processing of complex sounds in the prothoracic ganglion of a bushcricket.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2026
    Article
  2. Flupyradifurone, imidacloprid and clothianidin disrupt the auditory processing in the locust CNS.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ali CillovDepartment of Cellular Neurobiology, Johann-Friedrich-Blumenbach-Institute of Zoology & Anthropology, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Andreas StumpnerDepartment of Cellular Neurobiology, Johann-Friedrich-Blumenbach-Institute of Zoology & Anthropology, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
University of Göttingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A new method for individually staining insect neurons with metal ions was described in the late 60s, closely followed by the introduction of the first bright fluorescent dye, Lucifer Yellow, for the same purpose. These milestones enabled an unprecedented level of detail regarding the neuronal basis of sensory processes such as hearing. Due to their conspicuous auditory behavior, orthopterans rapidly established themselves as a popular model for studies on hearing (first identified auditory neuron: 1974; first local auditory interneuron: 1977). Although crickets (Ensifera, Gryllidae) surpassed grasshoppers (Caelifera) as the main model taxon, surprisingly few neuronal elements have been described in crickets. More auditory neurons are described for bush crickets (Ensifera, Tettigoniidae), but due to their great biodiversity, the described auditory neurons in bush crickets are scattered over distantly related groups, hence being confounded by potential differences in the neuronal pathways themselves. Our review will outline all local auditory elements described in ensiferans so far. We will focus on one bush cricket species,

Indexed as

acoustic communicationbush cricketlocal neuronsneuronal processingorthoptera

Identifiers

PMID36620451
PMCPMC9822282
OpenAlexW4312070882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.