↓ Skip to main content

Aerial low-frequency hearing in captive and free-ranging harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) measured using auditory brainstem responses

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Comparative Physiology A, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
Title
Aerial low-frequency hearing in captive and free-ranging harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) measured using auditory brainstem responses
Published in
Journal of Comparative Physiology A, October 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00359-016-1126-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Klaus Lucke, Gordon D. Hastie, Kerstin Ternes, Bernie McConnell, Simon Moss, Deborah J. F. Russell, Heike Weber, Vincent M. Janik

Abstract

The hearing sensitivity of 18 free-ranging and 10 captive harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) to aerial sounds was measured in the presence of typical environmental noise through auditory brainstem response measurements. A focus was put on the comparative hearing sensitivity at low frequencies. Low- and mid-frequency thresholds appeared to be elevated in both captive and free-ranging seals, but this is likely due to masking effects and limitations of the methodology used. The data also showed individual variability in hearing sensitivity with probable age-related hearing loss found in two old harbour seals. These results suggest that the acoustic sensitivity of free-ranging animals was not negatively affected by the soundscape they experienced in the wild.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
Unknown 53 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 24%
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 13 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 46%
Environmental Science 12 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Chemical Engineering 1 2%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 13 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 November 2016.
All research outputs
#5,692,798
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#321
of 1,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,466
of 314,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,450 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,664 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.