MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006461157 · doi:10.1037/0735-7036.122.3.252

Discrimination of acoustic communication signals by grasshoppers (Chorthippus biguttulus): Temporal resolution, temporal integration, and the impact of intrinsic noise.

2008· article· en· W2006461157 on OpenAlexaff
Bernhard Ronacher, Sandra Wohlgemuth, Astrid Vogel, Rüdiger Krahe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of comparative psychology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoise (video)Metric (unit)Spike (software development)Computer scienceAuditory systemSpeech recognitionTemporal resolutionSpike trainAcousticsSIGNAL (programming language)NeurophysiologyArtificial intelligenceNeuroscienceBiologyPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A characteristic feature of hearing systems is their ability to resolve both fast and subtle amplitude modulations of acoustic signals. This applies also to grasshoppers, which for mate identification rely mainly on the characteristic temporal patterns of their communication signals. Usually the signals arriving at a receiver are contaminated by various kinds of noise. In addition to extrinsic noise, intrinsic noise caused by stochastic processes within the nervous system contributes to making signal recognition a difficult task. The authors asked to what degree intrinsic noise affects temporal resolution and, particularly, the discrimination of similar acoustic signals. This study aims at exploring the neuronal basis for sexual selection, which depends on exploiting subtle differences between basically similar signals. Applying a metric, by which the similarities of spike trains can be assessed, the authors investigated how well the communication signals of different individuals of the same species could be discriminated and correctly classified based on the responses of auditory neurons. This spike train metric yields clues to the optimal temporal resolution with which spike trains should be evaluated.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of comparative psychologySame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207