ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2024
The perception of ultrasonic vocalizations by laboratory mice following intense noise exposures.
Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Noise-induced hearing loss interacts with age, sex, and listening conditions to affect individuals' perception of ecologically relevant stimuli like speech. The present experiments assessed the impact of age and sex on vocalization detection by noise-exposed mice trained to detect a downsweep or complex ultrasonic vocalization in quiet or in the presence of a noise background. Daily thresholds before and following intense noise exposure were collected longitudinally and compared across several factors. All mice, regardless of age, sex, listening condition, or stimulus type showed their poorest behavioral sensitivity immediately after the noise exposure. There were varying degrees of recovery over time and across factors. Old-aged mice had greater threshold shifts and less recovery compared to middle-aged mice. Mice had larger threshold shifts and less recovery for downsweeps than for complex vocalizations. Female mice were more sensitive, had smaller post-noise shifts, and had better recovery than males. Thresholds in noise were higher and less variable than thresholds in quiet, but there were comparable shifts and recovery. In mice, as in humans, the perception of ecologically relevant stimuli suffers after an intense noise exposure, and results differ from simple tone detection findings.
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.