ArticleCommunications biology2026
Divergent processing strategies for auditory sequence recognition in humans and zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata).
Article in Communications 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deriving sequential information from complex sounds is a challenge for auditory systems, yet it remains unclear whether humans and nonhuman species integrate multidimensional cues or prioritize a single dimension when processing multidimensional input. We investigated how humans and zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata) process concurrent acoustic cues using an identical behavioural paradigm with complex-tone sequences. By presenting probe stimuli that selectively preserved or disrupted either pitch or formant trajectory, we quantified these processing strategies. We show that zebra finches employ an additive integration strategy, treating pitch and formant trajectories as complementary components of a unified auditory pattern. In contrast, humans exhibit a dominant reliance on pitch. Experience further modulates this bias, with trained human listeners recruiting secondary cues to preserve learned relational structure when pitch is unreliable. These findings imply a cross-species divergence in auditory representation, suggesting that auditory processing is shaped by an interplay of species-specific priorities and experience-dependent functional substitution.
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.