ArticleThe Journal of experimental biology2025
I can't hear you: effects of noise on auditory processing in mixed-species flocks.
Article in The Journal of experimental biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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 · 2026Article
- Can you hear me? House sparrow auditory processing differs across an urbanization gradient.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2026Article
- High-frequency vocalizations and hearing in hummingbirds: what we know and opportunities for the future.The Journal of experimental biology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Animals have evolved complex auditory systems to extract acoustic information from natural environmental noise, yet they are challenged by rising levels of novel anthropogenic noise. Songbirds adjust their vocal production in response to increasing noise, but auditory processing of signals in noise remains understudied. Auditory processing characteristics, including auditory filter bandwidth, filter efficiency and critical ratios (level-independent signal-to-noise ratios at threshold), likely influence auditory and behavioral responses to noise. Here, we investigated the effects of noise on auditory processing in three songbird species (black-capped chickadees, tufted titmice and white-breasted nuthatches) that live in mixed-species flocks and rely on heterospecific communication to coordinate mobbing behaviors. We determined masked thresholds and critical ratios from 1 to 4 kHz using auditory evoked potentials. We predicted that nuthatches would have the lowest critical ratios given that they have narrowest filters, followed by titmice and then chickadees. We found that nuthatches had the greatest sensitivity in quiet conditions, but the highest critical ratios, suggesting their auditory sensitivity is highly susceptible to noise. Titmice had the lowest critical ratios, suggesting relatively minor impacts of noise on their auditory processing. This is not consistent with predictions based on auditory filter bandwidth, but is consistent with both recent behavioral findings and predictions made by auditory filter efficiency measures. Detrimental effects of noise were most prevalent in the 2-4 kHz range, frequencies produced in vocalizations. Our results using the critical ratio as a measure of processing in noise suggest that low levels of anthropogenic noise may influence these three species differently.
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.