↓ Skip to main content

Level-dependent masking of the auditory evoked responses in a dolphin: manifestation of the compressive nonlinearity

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Comparative Physiology A, September 2019
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
Title
Level-dependent masking of the auditory evoked responses in a dolphin: manifestation of the compressive nonlinearity
Published in
Journal of Comparative Physiology A, September 2019
DOI 10.1007/s00359-019-01370-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vladimir V. Popov, Dmitry I. Nechaev, Evgenia V. Sysueva, Alexander Ya. Supin

Abstract

At suprathreshold sound levels, interactions between masking noise and sound signals are liable to compressive nonlinearity in the auditory system. The compressive nonlinearity is a property of the "active" cochlear mechanism. It is not known whether this mechanism is capable to function at frequencies close to or above 100 kHz that are available to odontocetes (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises). This question may be answered by the use of the frequency-specific masking. Auditory evoked potentials to sound stimuli in a bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, were recorded in the presence of simultaneous maskers. Stimulus frequencies were 45, 64, or 90 kHz. Maskers were on-frequency bandlimited noise or low-frequency noise of frequencies 0.25-1 oct below the stimulus frequency. The stimuli provoked responses as a series of brain-potential waves following the pip-train rate. For the on-frequency masker, the masker level at threshold dependence on the signal level was 1.1 dB/dB. For maskers of 1 oct below the stimulus, the dependence was 0.53-0.57 dB/dB. The data considered evidence for the compressive nonlinearity of responses to stimuli, and therefore, are indicative of the functioning of the active mechanism at frequencies up to 90 kHz.

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 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 43%
Other 1 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 14%
Student > Master 1 14%
Researcher 1 14%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 2 29%
Environmental Science 1 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 14%
Neuroscience 1 14%
Other 1 14%
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 30 September 2019.
All research outputs
#21,592,429
of 24,093,053 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#1,373
of 1,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#298,435
of 349,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,093,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,462 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 349,337 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 2 of them.