ArticlePLoS computational biology2026
Human perception of avian biodiversity in naturalistic auditory scenes.
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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.