A comparative analysis of form and function in Centrarchidae hearing ability: Does otolith variation affect auditory responsiveness?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There exists a wealth of knowledge on hearing ability in individual fish species, but the role of interspecific variation, and drivers behind it, remains understudied, making it difficult to understand evolutionary drivers. The current study quantified hearing thresholds for three species of sunfish in the family Centrarchidae [bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus), pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus), and rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris)] using auditory evoked potentials and behavioral trials and saccular otolith size and hair cell density. In auditory physiological experiments, 10-ms tone bursts were played and responses monitored to measure hearing. In behavioral experiments, fish were exposed to the same tone bursts for 1 s, and changes in fish behaviors were monitored. Saccular otolith morphology and hair cell densities were also quantified. Physiological thresholds varied between species, but behavioral thresholds did not. Rock bass had larger S:O ratio (percentage of the saccular otolith surface occupied by the sulcus), but no differences in hair cell densities were found. Our study allows for a direct comparison between confamilial species, allowing a deeper understanding of sound detection abilities and possible mechanisms driving differential hearing. Using both approaches also allows future research into how these species may be impacted by increasing levels of anthropogenic noise.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".