Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39715765›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Biological relevance and methodological implications of unexpected hearing thresholds in a diving bird.

Helen Rößler, Anne May, Michael Dähne

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 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

3 authors.

Helen RößlerDeutsches Meeresmuseum, Katharinenberg 14 - 20, 18439, Stralsund, Germany.
Anne MayDeutsches Meeresmuseum, Katharinenberg 14 - 20, 18439, Stralsund, Germany.
Michael DähneDeutsches Meeresmuseum, Katharinenberg 14 - 20, 18439, Stralsund, Germany. michael.daehne@bfn.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many animals alternate between different media, such as air and water, thanks to specific adaptations. Among birds, penguins (Sphenisciformes) have the most extreme morphological, physiological, and behavioural adaptations to their amphibious lifestyle. Their auditory perception of sound, potentially matching different impedances in air and under water, is largely unknown particularly in terms of whether their underwater adaptations may have affected their in-air hearing capacity. In this context, we investigated the hearing ability of four captive Humboldt penguins (Spheniscus humboldti) in air using psychophysical hearing tests. The 50% hit rate was found to be below 76 dB rms re 20 µPa between 0.250 kHz and 10 kHz, with most sensitive hearing at 2 kHz (mean threshold of 15.3 dB rms re 20 µPa). The four penguins showed large inter-individual variation in sensitivity at a given frequency but within a common audiogram shape. Despite the variability, penguins detected 0.250 kHz at comparably low sound levels (mean = 36.8 dB rms re 20 µPa) after a rapid decline of sensitivity at 0.500 kHz (mean = 64.1 dB rms re 20 µPa). This finding was unexpected, and it is therefore difficult to interpret whether it is an artefact of the methods or a biologically relevant finding. An extensive discussion is presented and suggests that this finding may be biologically relevant but would need further investigation to reveal the underlying mechanisms.

Indexed as

Auditory ThresholdDivingHearingSpheniscidaeAnimalsAuditory PerceptionFemaleMaleBehaviourIn-air hearingPenguinsPsychophysicsThresholdTraining

Identifiers

PMID39715765
PMCPMC11666583

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.