↓ Skip to main content

Active amplification in insect ears: mechanics, models and molecules

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Comparative Physiology A, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
Active amplification in insect ears: mechanics, models and molecules
Published in
Journal of Comparative Physiology A, December 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00359-014-0969-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natasha Mhatre

Abstract

Active amplification in auditory systems is a unique and sophisticated mechanism that expends energy in amplifying the mechanical input to the auditory system, to increase its sensitivity and acuity. Although known for decades from vertebrates, active auditory amplification was only discovered in insects relatively recently. It was first discovered from two dipterans, mosquitoes and flies, who hear with their light and compliant antennae; only recently has it been observed in the stiffer and heavier tympanal ears of an orthopteran. The discovery of active amplification in two distinct insect lineages with independently evolved ears, suggests that the trait may be ancestral, and other insects may possess it as well. This opens up extensive research possibilities in the field of acoustic communication, not just in auditory biophysics, but also in behaviour and neurobiology. The scope of this review is to establish benchmarks for identifying the presence of active amplification in an auditory system and to review the evidence we currently have from different insect ears. I also review some of the models that have been posited to explain the mechanism, both from vertebrates and insects and then review the current mechanical, neurobiological and genetic evidence for each of these models.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 49 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 20%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 10%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 4 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 47%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 8%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Physics and Astronomy 3 6%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 9 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 January 2015.
All research outputs
#19,221,261
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#1,225
of 1,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#266,970
of 365,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#13
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 365,565 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.