Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37594981›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Interspecific differences in the effects of masking and distraction on anti-predator behavior in suburban anthropogenic noise.

Trina L Chou, Anjali Krishna, Mark Fossesca, Avani Desai, Julia Goldberg, Sophie Jones, Morgan Stephens, Benjamin M Basile, Megan D Gall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Cut through the noise: vocal signals and auditory processing vary along an urbanization gradient in Pacific treefrogs.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Free-ranging livestock grazing shifts the acoustic community in a northeast Asian temperate forest.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2026
    Article
  4. 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

9 authors.

Trina L ChouNeuroscience and Behavior Program, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, NY, United States of America.ORCID 0009-0000-7292-2168
Anjali KrishnaBiology Department, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, NY, United States of America.
Mark FossescaNeuroscience and Behavior Program, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, NY, United States of America.
Avani DesaiBiology Department, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, NY, United States of America.
Julia GoldbergBiology Department, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, NY, United States of America.
Sophie JonesBiology Department, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, NY, United States of America.
Morgan StephensBiology Department, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, NY, United States of America.
Benjamin M BasileDepartment of Psychology, Dickinson College, Carlisle, PA, United States of America.
Megan D GallNeuroscience and Behavior Program, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, NY, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0032-8164

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Predation is a common threat to animal survival. The detection of predators or anti-predator communication signals can be disrupted by anthropogenic noise; however, the mechanism by which responses are affected is unclear. Masking and distraction are the two hypotheses that have emerged as likely explanations for changes in behavior in noise. Masking occurs when the signal and noise fall within the same sensory domain; noise overlapping the energy in the signal reduces signal detection. Distraction can occur when noise in any sensory domain contributes to a greater cognitive load, thereby reducing signal detection. Here, we used a repeated measures field experiment to determine the relative contributions of masking and distraction in mediating reduced anti-predator responses in noise. We recorded the approaches and vocalizations of black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus), tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor), and white-breasted nuthatches (Sitta carolinensis) to both visual and acoustic cues of predator presence, either with or without simultaneous exposure to anthropogenic noise. Titmice increased their calling to both visual and acoustic cues of predator presence. However, there was no significant effect of noise on the calling responses of titmice regardless of stimulus modality. Noise appeared to produce a distraction effect in chickadees; however, this effect was small, suggesting that chickadees may be relatively unaffected by low levels of anthropogenic noise in suburban environments. White-breasted nuthatch calling behavior was affected by the interaction of the modality of the predator stimulus and the noise condition. Nuthatches had a delayed response to the predator presentations, with a greater calling rate following the presentation of the acoustic stimulus in quiet compared to the presentation of the acoustic stimulus in noise. However, there was no difference in calling rate between the quiet and noise conditions for the visual stimulus. Together this suggests that even moderate levels of noise have some masking effect for white-breasted nuthatches. We suggest that the mechanisms through which noise influences anti-predator behavior may depend on the social roles, foraging ecology and auditory capabilities of each species.

Indexed as

Predatory BehaviorSongbirdsAcousticsAnimalsCommunicationCues

Identifiers

PMID37594981
PMCPMC10437853

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.