Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42479136›Full record

ReviewJournal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology2026

Otolithic organs and vibratory sensitivity in frogs: do saccular otoconial volumes vary according to lifestyle?

Matthew J Mason, Sandra Goutte, Piers J Seal, Marius Kluonis, Jakob Christensen-Dalsgaard

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology, 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

5 authors.

Matthew J MasonDepartment of Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EG, UK. mjm68@cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7845-0720
Sandra GoutteDivision of Sciences, New York University Abu Dhabi, PO Box 129188, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8939-3773
Piers J SealDepartment of Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EG, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-0017-3695
Marius KluonisDepartment of Physiology, Development & Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EG, UK.
Jakob Christensen-DalsgaardDepartment of Biology, University of Southern, Campusvej 55, Odense M, DK-5230, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6075-3819

Funding

Danish National Science Foundation 3103-00244B
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Of the three otolithic organs found in frogs, the sacculus is known to possess acute sensitivity to seismic vibrations. Simple models of otolith function suggest that increasing size of an otolith should improve vibratory sensitivity. In the first part of this paper, we provide a short review of the existing literature pertaining to the vibratory sensitivity of the otolithic organs in frogs. Given parallels in other vertebrate groups, we hypothesized that fossorial frogs would have larger saccular otoconial masses ('otoliths') than non-burrowing species, used for the detection of ground vibrations. In the second part of this paper, we tested this hypothesis by measuring otolith volumes in 15 species of frogs, based on CT reconstructions. Larger species tended to have larger otoliths. The fossorial frog Hemisus guineensis had the largest otoliths relative to skull size of all species examined, followed by a non-fossorial species, Ptychadena delphina. The otoliths of two other fossorial specialists were not notably enlarged, however, and volumes were relatively small in some semi-fossorial species. Pronounced sexual dimorphism was noted in the aquatic frog Xenopus laevis, in which males have larger saccular otoliths than females in absolute terms, despite their smaller body size. Otoconial dissolution represents a problem for studies which involve the examination of preserved specimens, but with this caveat in mind, we conclude that factors other than fossoriality might drive expansion of the saccular otoliths in frogs.

Indexed as

AnuraOtolithic MembraneSaccule and UtricleVibrationAnimalsFemaleMaleOrgan SizeSpecies SpecificityFossorialFrogOtolithSacculusSeismic sensitivity

Identifiers

PMID42479136
PMCPMC13642394

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.