Relative Size of Auditory Pathways in Symmetrically and Asymmetrically Eared Owls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Owls are highly efficient predators with a specialized auditory system designed to aid in the localization of prey. One of the most unique anatomical features of the owl auditory system is the evolution of vertically asymmetrical ears in some species, which improves their ability to localize the elevational component of a sound stimulus. In the asymmetrically eared barn owl, interaural time differences (ITD) are used to localize sounds in azimuth, whereas interaural level differences (ILD) are used to localize sounds in elevation. These two features are processed independently in two separate neural pathways that converge in the external nucleus of the inferior colliculus to form an auditory map of space. Here, we present a comparison of the relative volume of 11 auditory nuclei in both the ITD and the ILD pathways of 8 species of symmetrically and asymmetrically eared owls in order to investigate evolutionary changes in the auditory pathways in relation to ear asymmetry. Overall, our results indicate that asymmetrically eared owls have much larger auditory nuclei than owls with symmetrical ears. In asymmetrically eared owls we found that both the ITD and ILD pathways are equally enlarged, and other auditory nuclei, not directly involved in binaural comparisons, are also enlarged. We suggest that the hypertrophy of auditory nuclei in asymmetrically eared owls likely reflects both an improved ability to precisely locate sounds in space and an expansion of the hearing range. Additionally, our results suggest that the hypertrophy of nuclei that compute space may have preceded that of the expansion of the hearing range and evolutionary changes in the size of the auditory system occurred independently of phylogeny.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".