↓ Skip to main content

Temporal vocal features suggest different call-pattern generating mechanisms in mice and bats

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neuroscience, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Temporal vocal features suggest different call-pattern generating mechanisms in mice and bats
Published in
BMC Neuroscience, September 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2202-14-99
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steffen R Hage, Natalja Gavrilov, Ferdinand Salomon, Anna M Stein

Abstract

Mice produce ultrasonic vocalizations in various inter-individual encounters and with high call rates. However, it is so far virtually unknown how these vocal patterns are generated. On the one hand, these vocal patterns could be embedded into the normal respiratory cycle, as happens in bats and other mammals that produce similar call rates and frequencies. On the other, mice could possess distinct vocal pattern generating systems that are capable of modulating the respiratory cycle, which is what happens in non-human and human primates. In the present study, we investigated the temporal call patterns of two different mammalian species, bats and mice, in order to differentiate between these two possibilities for mouse vocalizations. Our primary focus was on comparing the mechanisms for the production of rapid, successive ultrasound calls of comparable frequency ranges in the two species.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 6%
Italy 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 29 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 21%
Student > Master 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 39%
Neuroscience 4 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Environmental Science 2 6%
Engineering 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 5 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 November 2013.
All research outputs
#6,053,255
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neuroscience
#269
of 1,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,720
of 201,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neuroscience
#9
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,265 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 201,145 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.