Back

Differences in Auditory Brainstem Responses between Laboratory-reared and Wild-caught Prairie Voles (Microtus ochrogaster)

Joseph, L.; Colon-Rivera, N.; New, E. M.; Joseph, D. M.; Hurd, J. A.; Sergott, C. E.; McCullagh, E.

2025-10-09 neuroscience
10.1101/2025.10.08.681257 bioRxiv
Show 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.

Published in PLOS ONE (predicted rank #5) · training set

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.