Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42869919›Full record

ArticleCommunications biology2026

Divergent processing strategies for auditory sequence recognition in humans and zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata).

Zhi-Yuan Ning, Jiaxin Li, Carel Ten Cate, Henkjan Honing

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

4 authors.

Zhi-Yuan NingInstitute of Biology Leiden, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands. zhiyuanning@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-5440-8381
Jiaxin LiMusic Cognition Group, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Carel Ten Cate *Institute of Biology Leiden, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Henkjan Honing *Music Cognition Group, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. H.J.Honing@uva.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7046-7923

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Auditory PerceptionFinchesAcoustic StimulationAnimalsCuesFemaleHumansMalePitch PerceptionSpecies Specificity

Identifiers

PMID42869919
PMCPMC13661893

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.