PLoS ONENeurosciencePeer-reviewed journal article
Differences in Auditory Brainstem Responses between Laboratory-reared and Wild-caught Prairie Voles (Microtus ochrogaster)
Luberson JosephiD, Naleyshka Colon-RiveraiD, Emily M. New, Desi M. JosephiD, Jessica A. HurdiD, Casey E. SergottiD, Elizabeth A. McCullaghiD
Abstract
Prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster) are a semi-fossorial rodent that are an emerging model in social neuroscience. Comparing laboratory-reared and wild-caught individuals is essential for understanding how environmental history shapes neural and sensory traits and for assessing the ecological validity of laboratory findings. Despite this, relatively few studies have taken this approach. We used auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) to compare ABR thresholds and ABR wave characteristics between laboratory-reared and wild-caught prairie voles. ABR recordings show that, similar to other semi-fossorial rodents, M. ochrogaster exhibit a hearing range of 1 - 46 kHz with peak sensitivity around 8 to 32 kHz. However, wild-caught prairie voles displayed significantly lower ABR thresholds at 1, 4, 8, 16, and 24 kHz compared to laboratory-reared prairie voles. There were significant differences in interpeak latency between both tested groups, with laboratory-reared prairie voles showing faster interpeak latency responses than wild-caught voles. However, there were no differences in amplitude ratios between groups. Laboratory-reared prairie voles showed faster normalized latencies and higher relative amplitude of the binaural interaction component (BIC) of the ABR than wild-caught voles. There were no significant differences in ABR thresholds, interpeak latency, amplitude ratio, normalized latency, and relative amplitude between the sexes. These differences in auditory processing support the importance of integrating both wild and captive populations to advance comparative auditory research. SUMMARY STATEMENTWild and laboratory-reared prairie voles show distinct auditory processing, highlighting how environment history shapes hearing and underscoring the need for comparative studies.
- Citations
- 2
- FWCI
- 8.33
- Field percentile
- top 4%
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Hearing Ability of Prairie Voles (Microtus ochrogaster)
Emily M. New, Jessica A. Hurd, … Elizabeth A. McCullagh·The Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaPeer-reviewed·Jan 1, 2024
- Auditory Brainstem Responses in Two Closely Related Peromyscus Species (Peromyscus leucopus and Peromyscus maniculatus)
Luberson Joseph, Emily M. New, … Elizabeth A. McCullagh·The Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaPeer-reviewed·Jun 1, 2025
- Comparative analysis of primary auditory cortical responses in bats and mice to repetitive stimuli trains
Katrina E. Deane, Francisco García‐Rosales, … Max F. K. Happel·bioRxiv·Oct 28, 2022
- Characterizing Simultaneously Recorded Auditory Brainstem and Middle Latency Responses Using the Parallel Auditory Brainstem Response Paradigm
Isabel Nola Herb, Melissa Jane Polonenko·Ear and HearingPeer-reviewed·Jun 9, 2026
- Sociality Drives Sex Differences in Auditory Brainstem Processing Across Rodent Species
Luberson Joseph, Desi M. Joseph, … Elizabeth A. McCullagh·bioRxiv·Jun 12, 2026
- Optimizing auditory brainstem response acquisition using interleaved frequencies
Brad N. Buran, Seán P Elkins, … Stephen V. David·Journal of the Association for Research in OtolaryngologyPeer-reviewed·Jun 1, 2020