Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42245154›Full record

ArticleAnimal biotelemetry2026

Case report: comparison of NexTrak and VR2 acoustic receiver performance in a low-noise coastal marine environment.

Wesley R Ogloff, Thomas Stamp, Dale M Webber, Gregory B Skomal, Megan V Winton, Alisa L Newton, G Christopher Fischer, Nigel E Hussey

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Animal biotelemetry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Wesley R OgloffUniversity of Windsor, Windsor, ON N9B 3P4 Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7399-4323
Thomas StampUniversity of Windsor, Windsor, ON N9B 3P4 Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7368-5475
Dale M WebberTancook Islands Marine Field Station, Big Tancook Island, NS B0J 3G0 Canada.
Gregory B SkomalMassachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, New Bedford, MA 02744 USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4341-453X
Megan V WintonAtlantic White Shark Conservancy, Chatham, MA 02650 USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2628-7022
Alisa L NewtonOCEARCH, Park City, UT 84060 USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2269-2832
G Christopher FischerOCEARCH, Park City, UT 84060 USA.
Nigel E HusseyUniversity of Windsor, Windsor, ON N9B 3P4 Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9050-6077

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Acoustic telemetry is a common methodology in the study of animal movement, behaviour, and physiology in aquatic environments. In the marine environment, receiver performance is limited by environmental conditions and habitat (which modulate receiver detection range) and the number of tagged animals in the system (with signal collisions reducing the receiver's ability to decode unique transmitter IDs). The Innovasea NexTrak receiver was developed to address the key challenges of detection range, number of transmissions successfully decoded, and quality of detection data. To assess how NexTrak receivers perform relative to the commonly used VR2AR receiver, we co-deployed NexTrak and VR2AR receivers on six moorings within a larger acoustic array deployed to study white shark movement ecology in Mahone Bay, Nova Scotia, Canada. We compared receiver performance in terms of (i) number of animals detected, (ii) number of transmissions received, (iii) structure and duration of detection events, and (iv) the effects of environmental noise on detection rates. Results: Results showed 27.7 ± 14.4% more white sharks and 86.0 ± 20.9% more detections for NexTrak relative to VR2AR. At the detection-event level, NexTrak recorded more detections (3.9 ± 3.6, range: 0-19) than VR2AR (2.2 ± 3.0, range: 0-11). Detection events were also longer for NexTrak (471 ± 321 s, range: 0-1549 s) than for VR2AR (324 ± 241 s, range: 0-893 s), equating to a 45% higher detection-event duration as a proxy for increased detection range. While noise was a significant predictor of hourly detections, with each mV increase associated with a ~ 0.4% reduction in detections, there was no discernable difference between NexTrak and VR2AR in their performance relative to noise in our relatively quiet study system. Conclusions: Overall, it is evident that the NexTrak receiver has the potential to improve acoustic telemetry capabilities through enhanced detection efficiency and data quality relative to VR2AR. Improvements in detection range and decoding efficiency have implications for research costs, array design decisions, and the accuracy and precision of continuous movement tracks in fine-scale positioning arrays. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40317-026-00451-7.

Indexed as

Acoustic telemetryNexTrakPulse Position Modulation (PPM)Receiver performanceVR2AR

Identifiers

PMID42245154
PMCPMC13230341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.