Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42766623›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2026

Human perception of avian biodiversity in naturalistic auditory scenes.

Richard McWalter, Christian Lorenzi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 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

2 authors.

Richard McWalterLaboratoire des Systèmes Perceptifs, Département d'Études Cognitives, École Normale Supérieure, PSL University, CNRS, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7638-0511
Christian LorenziLaboratoire des Systèmes Perceptifs, Département d'Études Cognitives, École Normale Supérieure, PSL University, CNRS, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Natural environments are filled with a diverse array of sound sources, from bird vocalizations and insect stridulations to waterfalls and wind noise. The sounds often co-occur, arriving at the ear of human listeners as a mixture of the different sources. The auditory system is tasked with segregating the individual sound sources of the mixture into meaningful representations. In contrast with human auditory perception in urban environments, which include speech and music, little is known about our capacity to segregate mixtures common in natural environments. Here, we report on the capacities of the human auditory system when presented with mixtures of bird vocalizations - that is, scenes common in natural environments - by systematically varying the number of vocalizations from the same species and from different species. We found that humans could discriminate mixtures but only up until around 8 individuals of the same species beyond which mixtures may rely on a time-averaged summary statistic. Furthermore, humans appear to segregate mixtures of different species based on the disparities in their summary statistics. The results suggest that humans analyse natural auditory scenes using the same segregation mechanisms as for sounds produced by humans and other geophysical sounds.

Indexed as

Auditory PerceptionBiodiversityBirdsVocalization, AnimalAcoustic StimulationAnimalsAuditory AcuityFemaleHumans

Identifiers

PMID42766623
PMCPMC13645227

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.