Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39013168›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2024

Echolocating bats show species-specific variation in susceptibility to acoustic forward masking.

Grace Capshaw, Clarice A Diebold, Susanne J Sterbing, Amanda M Lauer, Cynthia F Moss

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Grace CapshawDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5688-2538
Clarice A DieboldDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3678-3003
Susanne J SterbingDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8958-6938
Amanda M LauerDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland 21205, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4184-7374
Cynthia F MossDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6916-0000

Funding

Training Program in Hearing and BalanceT32DC000023 · NIDCD · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI CULLEN, KATHLEEN E · 1989 to 2025
$8.7M
Auditory-based navigation: attentional shifts rapidly modulate hippocampal codesR01NS121413 · NINDS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI MOSS, CYNTHIA F, ULANOVSKY, NACHUM · 2021 to 2025
$2.2M
Optical tools to probe neural circuits in the echolocating batR34NS118462 · NINDS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI KUCHIBHOTLA, KISHORE V, WOHLGEMUTH, MELVILLE J · 2020 to 2020
$705k
NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC000023NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS121413NINDS NIH HHS R34 NS118462
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Echolocating bats rely on precise auditory temporal processing to detect echoes generated by calls that may be emitted at rates reaching 150-200 Hz. High call rates can introduce forward masking perceptual effects that interfere with echo detection; however, bats may have evolved specializations to prevent repetition suppression of auditory responses and facilitate detection of sounds separated by brief intervals. Recovery of the auditory brainstem response (ABR) was assessed in two species that differ in the temporal characteristics of their echolocation behaviors: Eptesicus fuscus, which uses high call rates to capture prey, and Carollia perspicillata, which uses lower call rates to avoid obstacles and forage for fruit. We observed significant species differences in the effects of forward masking on ABR wave 1, in which E. fuscus maintained comparable ABR wave 1 amplitudes when stimulated at intervals of <3 ms, whereas post-stimulus recovery in C. perspicillata required 12 ms. When the intensity of the second stimulus was reduced by 20-30 dB relative to the first, however, C. perspicillata showed greater recovery of wave 1 amplitudes. The results demonstrate that species differences in temporal resolution are established at early levels of the auditory pathway and that these differences reflect auditory processing requirements of species-specific echolocation behaviors.

Indexed as

Acoustic StimulationChiropteraEcholocationEvoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain StemPerceptual MaskingSpecies SpecificityAnimalsAuditory PerceptionAuditory ThresholdFemaleMaleTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID39013168
PMCPMC11254387

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.