ArticleAnimal biotelemetry2026
Case report: comparison of NexTrak and VR2 acoustic receiver performance in a low-noise coastal marine environment.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.