MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3138642232 · doi:10.1002/cne.25138

Neurogenesis and the development of neural sex differences in vocal control regions of songbirds

2021· article· en· W3138642232 on OpenAlexafffund
Adriana Diez, Ha Yun An, Nicole Carfagnini, Claire Bottini, Scott A. MacDougall‐Shackleton

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Comparative Neurology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNeurogenesisTaeniopygiaDoublecortinBiologyVocal learningForebrainZebra finchNeuroscienceAuditory feedbackSongbirdSingingDentate gyrusHippocampusCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The brain regions that control the learning and production of song and other learned vocalizations in songbirds exhibit some of the largest sex differences in the brain known in vertebrates and are associated with sex differences in singing behavior. Song learning takes place through multiple stages: an early sensory phase when song models are memorized, followed by a sensorimotor phase in which auditory feedback is used to modify song output through subsong, plastic song, to adult crystalized song. However, how patterns of neurogenesis in these brain regions change through these learning stages, and differ between the sexes, is little explored. We collected brains from 63 young male and female zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata) over four stages of song learning. Using neurogenesis markers for cell division (proliferating cell nuclear antigen), neuron migration (doublecortin), and mature neurons (neuron-specific nuclear protein), we demonstrate that there are sex-specific changes in neurogenesis over song development that differ between the caudal motor pathway and anterior forebrain pathway of the vocal control circuit. In many of these regions, sex differences emerged very early in development, by 25 days post hatch, at the beginning of song learning. The emergence of sex differences in other components of the system was more gradual and had specific trajectories depending on the brain region and its function. In conclusion, we found that sex differences occurred early and continued during song learning. Moreover, transitions from the different phases of song development do not seem to depend on large changes in neurogenesis in the vocal control areas measured.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Comparative NeurologySame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207