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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Diversity of acoustic tracheal system and its role for directional hearing in crickets
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Zoology, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1742-9994-10-61 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Arne KD Schmidt, Heiner Römer |
| Abstract |
Sound localization in small insects can be a challenging task due to physical constraints in deriving sufficiently large interaural intensity differences (IIDs) between both ears. In crickets, sound source localization is achieved by a complex type of pressure difference receiver consisting of four potential sound inputs. Sound acts on the external side of two tympana but additionally reaches the internal tympanal surface via two external sound entrances. Conduction of internal sound is realized by the anatomical arrangement of connecting trachea. A key structure is a trachea coupling both ears which is characterized by an enlarged part in its midline (i.e., the acoustic vesicle) accompanied with a thin membrane (septum). This facilitates directional sensitivity despite an unfavorable relationship between wavelength of sound and body size. Here we studied the morphological differences of the acoustic tracheal system in 40 cricket species (Gryllidae, Mogoplistidae) and species of outgroup taxa (Gryllotalpidae, Rhaphidophoridae, Gryllacrididae) of the suborder Ensifera comprising hearing and non hearing species. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 45 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 26% |
| Researcher | 9 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 34 | 74% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 2% |
| Engineering | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 10 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 14 October 2019.
All research outputs
#4,719,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Zoology
#253
of 695 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,477
of 224,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Zoology
#8
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 695 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 224,556 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.