Acoustic communication in the electric yellow cichlid, <i>Labiochromis caeruleus</i>.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cichlidae represent an attractive model for acoustic communication as their well-characterized adaptive radiation can serve as a backdrop for testing evolutionary hypotheses. Despite interest in sound communication in cichlids, little is known of their hearing ability and less is known about hearing and sound production in the same species. The current study examined sound production, hearing, and auditory morphology in a Lake Malawi cichlid Labidochromis caeruleus. Males and females were paired in the laboratory and all behavioral and acoustic displays recorded. Hearing was tested to tone bursts and samples of recorded calls using auditory evoked potentials and morphology was assayed using MicroCT scans of intact fish. Males produced calls with dominant frequency of approximately 300 Hz but only when simultaneously performing a quiver display. Fish detected tones from 100–1000 Hz and were more sensitive to tones than to playbacks of call segments. Finally, MicroCT showed a heart-shaped swim bladder with anterior protrusions directed at the large saccular otoliths, possibly reducing self-generated noise by focusing the call away from the ears. With this combination of behavioral, morphological, and physiological approaches, we were able to fully characterize acoustic communication in this species for the first time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".