↓ Skip to main content

Unexpected dynamic up-tuning of auditory organs in day-flying moths

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Comparative Physiology A, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Unexpected dynamic up-tuning of auditory organs in day-flying moths
Published in
Journal of Comparative Physiology A, April 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00359-015-1009-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emanuel C. Mora, Ariadna Cobo-Cuan, Frank Macías-Escrivá, Manfred Kössl

Abstract

In certain nocturnal moth species the frequency range of best hearing shifts to higher frequencies during repeated sound stimulation. This could provide the moths with a mechanism to better detect approaching echolocating bats. However, such a dynamic up-tuning would be of little value for day-flying moths that use intra-specific acoustic communication. Here we examined if the ears of day-flying moths provide stable tuning during longer sound stimulation. Contrary to our expectations, dynamic up-tuning was found in the ear of the day-flying species Urania boisduvalii and Empyreuma pugione. Audiograms were measured with distortion-product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs). The level of the dominant distortion product (i.e. 2f1-f2) varied as a function of time by as much as 45 dB during ongoing acoustic stimulation, showing a systematic decrease at low frequencies and an increase at high frequencies. As a consequence, within about 2 s of acoustic stimulation, the DPOAEs audiogram shifted from low to high frequencies. Despite the up-tuning, the range of best audition still fell within the frequency band of the species-specific communication signals, suggesting that intra-specific communication should not be affected adversely. Up-tuning could be an ancestral condition in moth ears that in day-flying moths does not underlie larger selection pressure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 5%
Unknown 20 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 29%
Student > Master 5 24%
Researcher 4 19%
Professor 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 2 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 71%
Neuroscience 2 10%
Unknown 4 19%
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 05 March 2016.
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
#195,767
of 266,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#10
of 17 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 266,578 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 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.