ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2024
Echolocating bats show species-specific variation in susceptibility to acoustic forward masking.
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.
- Rapid sensorimotor adaptation to auditory midbrain silencing in free-flying bats.Current biology : CB · 2024Article
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.
Funding
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
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.