Peer review process
Not revised: This Reviewed Preprint includes the authors’ original preprint (without revision), an eLife assessment, public reviews, and a provisional response from the authors.
Read more about eLife’s peer review process.Editors
- Reviewing EditorJesse GoldbergCornell University, Ithaca, United States of America
- Senior EditorAndrew KingUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
This work by Antonnen et al. was triggered by claims of auditory-mediated effects on altricial avian embryos, which were published without any direct evidence that the relevant parental vocalizations were actually heard. I agree with Anttonen et al. that, based on the available evidence about avian auditory development, those claims are highly speculative and therefore necessitate more direct experimental verification.
Attonen et al. have embarked on a comprehensive series of experiments to:
(1) Better characterize acoustically the relevant parental vocalizations (heat whistles; in a separate preprint, not reviewed here)
(2) Characterize the auditory sensitivity of zebra finches at various stages of their posthatching development. Despite the long-standing importance of the zebra finch as a songbird model in neuroethology of learned vocalizations, the auditory development of the species has not been studied so far.
(3) Explore an alternative hypothesis of how the parental vocalizations might be perceived.
The principal method used here is the non-invasive recording of ABR (auditory brainstem response), a standard neurophysiological method in auditory research. The click-evoked ABR provides a quick and objective assessment of basic hearing sensitivity that does not require animal training. Weaknesses of the technique include its limited frequency specificity and low signal-to-noise ratio. The authors are experienced with ABR measurements and well aware of those issues. ABR responses in zebra finches are shown to gradually appear during the first week posthatching and to mature in subsequent weeks, consistent with the auditory development in other altricial bird species studied previously. When matching the acoustic properties of parental heat whistles and auditory sensitivities, hearing of the parental heat whistles by zebra finch hatchlings was convincingly excluded. Although not directly measured, this also convincingly extrapolates to zebra finch embryos. Finally, the authors tested the hypothesis that parental heat whistles could induce perceptible vibrations of the egg and thus stimulate the embryo via a different modality. The method used here was laser doppler vibrometry, an appropriate, state-of-the-art technique that the authors also have proven experience with. The induced vibrations were shown to be several orders of magnitude below known vibrotactile sensitivities in mammals and birds. Thus, although zebra finch vibrotactile thresholds were not obtained directly, the hypothesis of vibrotactile perception of parental heat whistles by zebra finch embryos could also be rejected convincingly.
In summary, even when considering some weaknesses of the techniques (which the authors are aware of), the conclusions of the paper are well supported: Auditory and/or vibration perception of parental heat whistles can be excluded as an explanation for previous reports of developmental programming for high ambient temperatures. As a constructive suggestion towards resolving the apparent paradox, the authors recommend repeating some of the crucial, previous playback experiments at lower sound levels that better match the natural parental vocalizations.
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
This study by Anttonen, Christensen-Dalsgaard, and Elemans describes the development of hearing thresholds in an altricial songbird species, the zebra finch. The results are very clear and along what might have been expected for altricial birds: at hatch (2 days post-hatch), the chicks are functionally deaf. Auditory evoked activity in the form of auditory brainstem responses (ABR) can start to be detected at 4 days post-hatch, but only at very loud sound levels. The study also shows that ABR response matures rapidly and reaches adult-like properties around 25 days post-hatch. The functional development of the auditory system is also frequency dependent, with a low-to-high frequency time course. All experiments are very well performed. The careful study throughout development and with the use of multiple time-points early in development is important to further ensure that the negative results found right after hatching are not the result of the experimental manipulation. The results themselves could be classified as somewhat descriptive, but, as the authors point out, they are particularly relevant and timely. Since 2016, there have been a series of studies published in high-profile journals that have presumably shown the importance of prenatal acoustic communication in altricial birds, mostly in zebra finches. This early acoustic communication would serve various adaptive functions. Although acoustic communication between embryos in the egg and parents has been shown in precocial birds (and crocodiles), finding an important function for prenatal communication in altricial birds came as a surprise. Unfortunately, none of those studies performed a careful assessment of the chicks' hearing abilities. This is done here, and the results are clear: zebra finches at 2 and 6 days post-hatch are functionally deaf. Since it is highly improbable that the hearing in the egg is more developed than at birth, one can only conclude that zebra finches in the egg (or at birth) cannot hear the heat whistles. The paper also ruled out the detection on egg vibrations as an alternative path. The prior literature will have to be corrected, or further studies conducted to solve the discrepancies. For this purpose, the "companion" paper on bioRxiv that studies the bioacoustical properties of heat calls from the same group will be particularly useful. Researchers from different groups will be able to precisely compare their stimuli.
Beyond the quality of the experiments, I also found that the paper was very well written. The introduction was particularly clear and complete (yet concise).
Weaknesses:
My only minor criticism is that the authors do not discuss potential differences between behavioral audiograms and ABRs. Optimally, one would need to repeat the work of Okanoya and Dooling with your setup and using the same calibration. The ~20dB difference might be real, or it might be due to SPL measured with different instruments, at different distances, etc. Either way, you could add a sentence in the discussion that states that even with the 20 dB difference in audiogram heat whistles would not be detected during the early days post-hatch. But adding a (novel) behavioral assay in young birds could further resolve the issue.
More Minor Points:
(1) As mentioned in the main text, the duration of pips (from pips to bursts) affects the effective bandwidth of the stimulus. I believe that the authors could give an estimate of this effective bandwidth, given what is known from bird auditory filters. I think that this estimate could be useful to compare to the effective bandwidth of the heat-call, which can now also be estimated.
(2) Figure 5b. Label the green and pink areas as song and heat-call spectrum. Also note that in the legend the authors say: "Green and red areas display the frequency windows related to the best hearing sensitivity of zebra finches and to heat calls, respectively". I don't think this is what they meant. I agree that 1-4 kHz is the best frequency sensitivity of zebra finches, but they probably meant green == "song frequency spectrum" and pink == "heat call spectrum". In either case, the figure and the legend need clarification.
(3) Figure 5c. Here also, I would change the song and heat-call labels to "song spectrum", "heat call spectrum". The authors would not want readers to think that they used song and heat calls in these experiments (maybe next time?). For the same reason, maybe in 5a you could add a cartoon of the oscillogram of a frequency sweep next to your speaker.
(4) Methods. In the description of the stimulus, the authors describe "5ms long tone bursts", but these are the tone pips in the main part of the manuscript. Use the same terms.
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary
Following recent findings that exposure to natural sounds and anthropogenic noise before hatching affects development and fitness in an altricial songbird, this study attempts to estimate the hearing capacities of zebra finch nestlings and the perception of high frequencies in that species. It also tries to estimate whether airborne sound can make zebra finch eggs vibrate, although this is not relevant to the question.
Strength
That prenatal sounds can affect the development of altricial birds clearly challenges the long-held assumption that altricial avian embryos cannot hear. However, there is currently no data to support that expectation. Investigating the development of hearing in songbirds is therefore important, even though technically challenging. More broadly, there is accumulating evidence that some bird species use sounds beyond their known hearing range (especially towards high frequencies), which also calls for a reassessment of avian auditory perception.
Weaknesses
Rather than following validated protocols, the study presents many experimental flaws and two major methodological mistakes (see below), which invalidate all results on responses to frequency-specific tones in nestlings and those on vibration transmission to eggs, as well as largely underestimating hearing sensitivity. Accordingly, the study fails to detect a response in the majority of individuals tested with tones, including adults, and the results are overall inconsistent with previous studies in songbirds. The text throughout the preprint is also highly inaccurate, often presenting only part of the evidence or misrepresenting previous findings (both qualitatively and quantitatively; some examples are given below), which alters the conclusions.
Conclusion and impact
The conclusion from this study is not supported by the evidence. Even if the experiment had been performed correctly, there are well-recognised limitations and challenges of the method that likely explain the lack of response. The preprint fails to acknowledge that the method is well-known for largely underestimating hearing threshold (by 20-40dB in animals) and that it may not be suitable for a 1-gram hatchling. Unlike what is claimed throughout, including in the title, the failure to detect hearing sensitivity in this study does not invalidate all previous findings documenting the impacts of prenatal sound and noise on songbird development. The limitations of the approach and of this study are a much more parsimonious explanation. The incorrect results and interpretations, and the flawed representation of current knowledge, mean that this preprint regrettably creates more confusion than it advances the field.
Detailed assessment
For brevity, only some references are included below as examples, using, when possible, those cited in the preprint (DOI is provided otherwise). A full review of all the studies supporting the points below is beyond the scope of this assessment.
(A) Hearing experiment
The study uses the Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR), which measures minute electrical signals transmitted to the surface of the skull from the auditory nerve and nuclei in the brainstem. ABR is widely used, especially in humans, because it is non-invasive. However, ABR is also a lot less sensitive than other methods, and requires very specific experimental precautions to reliably detect a response, especially in extremely small animals and with high-frequency sounds, as here.
(1) Results on nestling frequency sensitivity are invalid, for failing to follow correct protocols:
The results on frequency testing in nestlings are invalid, since what might serve as a positive control did not work: in adults, no response was detected in a majority of individuals, at the core of their hearing range, with loud 95dB sounds (Figure S1), when testing frequency sensitivity with "tone burst".
This is mostly because the study used a stimulation duration 5 times larger than the norm. It used 25ms tone bursts, when all published avian studies (in altricial or precocial birds) used stimulation of 5ms or less (when using subdermal electrodes as here; e.g., cited: Brittan-Powell et al 2004; not cited: Brittan-Powell et al 2002 (doi: 10.1121/1.1494807), Henry & Lucas 2008 (doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.08.003)). Long stimulations do not make sense and are indeed known to interfere with the detection of an ABR response, especially at high frequencies, as, for example, explicitly tested and stated in Lauridsen et al 2021 (cited).
Adult response was then re-tested with a correct 5ms tone duration ("tone-pip"), which showed that, for the few individuals that responded to 25ms tones, thresholds were abnormally high (c.a. by 30dB; Figure 2C).
Yet, no nestlings were retested with a correct protocol. There is therefore no valid data to support any conclusion on nestling frequency hearing. Under these circumstances, the fact that some nestlings showed a response to 25ms tones from day 8 would argue against them having very low sensitivity to sound.
(2) Responses to clicks underestimate hearing onset by several days:
Without any valid nestling responses to tones (see # 1), establishing the onset of hearing is not possible based on responses to clicks only, since responses to clicks occur at least 4 days after responses to tones during development (Saunders et al, 1973). Here, 60% of 4-day-old individuals responding to clicks means most would have responded to tones at and before 2 days post-hatch, had the experiment been done correctly.
Responses to tones are indeed observed in other songbirds at 1day post-hatch (see #6).
In budgerigars, hearing onset occurs before 5 days post hatch, since responses to both clicks and tones were detectable at the first age tested at 5dph (Brittan-Powell et al, 2004).
(3) Experimental parameters chosen lower ABR detectability, specifically in younger birds:
Very fast stimulus repetition rate inhibits the ABR response, especially in young:
(a) The stimulus presentation rate (25 stim/ sec) is 6 times faster than zebra finch heat-calls, and 5 to 25 times faster than most previous studies in young birds (e.g., cited: Saunders et al 1973, 1974: 1 stim/sec or less; Katayama 1985: 3.3 clicks/sec; Brittan-Powell et al 2004: 4 stim/sec). Faster rates saturate the neurons and accordingly are known to decrease ABR amplitude and increase ABR latency, especially in younger animals with an immature nervous system. In birds, this occurs especially in the range from 5 to 30 stim/sec (e.g., cited: Saunder et al 1973, Brittan-Powell et al 2004). Values here with 25 rather than 1-4 stim/min are therefore underestimating true sensitivity.
(b) Averaging over only 400 measures is insufficient to reliably detect weak ABR signals:
The study uses 2 to 3 times fewer measures per stimulation type than the recommended value of 1,000 (e.g., Brittan-Powell et al 2002, 2024; Henry & Lucas 2008). This specifically affects the detection of weak signals, as in small hatchlings with tiny brains (adult zebra finches are 12-14g).
(c) Body temperature is not specified and strongly affects the ABR:
Controlling the body temperature of hatchlings of 1-4 grams (with a temperature probe under a 5mm-wide wing) would be very challenging. Low body temperature entirely eliminates the ABR, and even slight deviance from optimal temperature strongly increases wave latency and decreases wave amplitude (e.g., cited: Katayama 1985).
(d) Other essential information is missing on parameters known to affect the ABR:
This includes i) the weight of the animals, ii) whether and how the response signal was amplified and filtered, iii) how the automatised S/N>2 criteria compared to visual assessment for wave detection, and iv) what measures were taken to allow the correct placement of electrodes on hatchlings less than 5 grams.
(4) Results in adults largely underestimate sensitivity at high frequencies, and are not the correct reference point:
(a) Thresholds measured here at high frequencies for adults (using the correct stimulus duration, only done on adults) are 10-30dB higher than in all 3 other published ABR studies in adult zebra finches (cited: Zevin et al 2004; Amin et al 2007; not cited: Noirot et al 2011 (10.1121/1.3578452)), for both 4 and 6 kHz tone pips.
(b) The underlying assumption used throughout the preprint that hearing must be adult-like to be functional in nestlings does not make sense. Slower and smaller neural responses are characteristic of immature systems, but it does not mean signals are not being perceived.
(5) Failure to account for ABR underestimation leads to false conclusions:
(a) Whether the ABR method is suitable to assess hearing in very small hatchlings is unknown. No previous avian study has used ABR before 5 days post-hatch, and all have used larger bird species than the zebra finch.
(b) Even when performed correctly on large enough animals, the ABR systematically underestimates actual auditory sensitivity by 20-40 dB, especially at high frequencies, compared to behavioural responses (e.g., none cited: Brittan-Powell et al 2002, Henry & Lucas 2008, Noirot et al 2011). Against common practice, the preprint fails to account for this, leading to wrong interpretations. For example, in Figure 1G (comparing to heat call levels), actual hearing thresholds would be 30-40dB below those displayed. In addition, the "heat whistle" level displayed here (from the same authors) is 15dB lower than their second measure that they do not mention, and than measures obtained by others (unpublished data). When these two corrections are made - or even just the first one - the conclusion that heat-call sound levels are below the zebra finch hearing threshold does not hold.
(c) Rather than making appropriate corrections, the preprint uses a reference in humans (L180), where ABR is measured using a much more powerful method (multi-array EEG) than in animals, and from a larger brain. The shift of "10-20dB" obtained in humans is not applicable to animals.
(6) Results are inconsistent with previous findings in developing songbirds:
As expected from all of the above, results and conclusions in the preprint are inconsistent with findings in other songbirds, which, using other methods, show for example, auditory sensitivity in:
(a) zebra finch embryos, in response to song vs silence (not cited: Rivera et al 2018, doi: 10.1097/WNR.0000000000001187)
(b) flycatcher hatchlings at 2-3d post hatch (first age tested), across a wide range of frequencies (0.3 to 5kHz), at low to moderate sound levels (45-65dB) (cited: Aleksandrov and Dmitrieva 1992, not cited: Korneeva et al 2006 (10.1134/S0022093006060056)).
(c) songbird nestlings at 2-6d post hatch, which discriminate and behaviourally respond to relevant parental calls or even complex songs. This level of discrimination requires good hearing across frequencies (e.g., not cited: Korneeva et al 2006; Schroeder & Podos 2023 (doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2023.06.015)).
(d) zebra finch nestlings at 13d post-hatch, which show adult-like processing of songs in the auditory cortex (CNM) (Schroeder & Remage‐Healey 2021, doi: 10.1002/dneu.22802).
(e) zebra finch juveniles, which are able to perceive and learn song syllables at 5-7kHz (fundamental frequency) with very similar acoustic properties to heat calls, and also produced during inspiration (Goller & Daley 2001, doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1805).
NONE of these results - which contradict results and claims in the preprint - are mentioned. Instead, the preprint focuses on very slow-developing species (parrots and owls), which take 2-4 times longer than songbirds to fledge (cited: Brittan-Powell et al 2004; Köppl & Nickel 2007; Kraemer et al 2017).
(7) Results in figures are misreported in the text, and conclusions in the abstract and headers are not supported by the data:
For example:
(a) The data on Figure 1E shows that at 4 days old, 8 out of 13 nestlings (60%) responded to clicks, but the text says only 5/13 responded (L89). When 60% (4dph) and 90% (6dph) of individuals responded, the correct term would be that "most animals", rather than "some animals" responded (L89). Saying that ABR to loud sound appeared "in the majority only after one week" (L93) is also incorrect, given the data. It follows that the title of the paragraph is also erroneous.
(b) The hearing threshold is underestimated by 40dB at 6 and 8Kz on Fig 2C, not by "10-20dB" as reported in the text (L178).
(B) Egg vibration experiment
(8) Using airborne sound to vibrate eggs is biologically irrelevant:
The measurement of airborne sound levels to vibrate eggs misunderstands bone conduction hearing and is not biologically meaningful: zebra finch parents are in direct contact with the eggs when producing heat calls during incubation, not hovering in front of the nest. This misunderstanding affects all extrapolations from this study to findings in studies on prenatal communication.
(C) Misrepresentation of current knowledge
(9) Values from published papers are misreported, which reverses the conclusions:
Most critical examples:
(a) Preprint: "Zebra finch most sensitive hearing range of 1-to-4 kHz (Amin et al., 2007; Okanoya and Dooling, 1987; Yeh et al., 2023)" (L173).
Actual values in the studies cited are:
1-to-7kHz, in Amin et al 2007 (threshold [=50dB with ABR] is the same at 7kHz and 1KHz).
1-to-6 kHz, in Okanoya and Dooling (the threshold [=30dB with behaviour] is actually lower at 6kHz than at 1KHz).
1-to-7kHz, in Yeh et al (threshold [=35-38dB with behaviour] is the same at 7kHz and 1KHz).
Note that zebra finch nestlings' begging calls peaking at 6kHz (Elie & Theunissen 2015, doi: 10.1007/s10071-015-0933-6), would fall 2kHz above the parents' best hearing range if it were only up to 4kHz.
(b) The preprint incorrectly states throughout (e.g., L139, L163, L248) that heat-calls are 7-10kHz, when the actual value is 6-10kHz in the paper cited (Katsis et al, 2018).
(c) Using the correct values from these studies, and heat-calls at 45 dB SLP (as measured by others (unpublished data), or as measured by the authors themselves, but which is not reported here (Anttonen et a,l 2025), the correct conclusion is that heat calls fall within the known zebra finch hearing range.
(10) Published evidence towards high-frequency hearing, including in early development, is systematically omitted:
(a) Other studies showing birds use high frequencies above the known avian hearing range are ignored. This includes oilbirds (7-23kHz; Brinklov et al 2017; by 1 of the preprint authors, doi: 10.1098/rsos.170255) and hummingbirds (10-20kHz; Duque et al 2020, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abb9393), and in a lesser extreme, zebra finches' inspiratory song syllables at 5-7kHz (Goller & Dalley, 2001).
(b) The discussion of anatomical development (L228-241) completely omits the well-known fact that the avian basilar papilla develops from high to low frequencies (i.e., base to apex), which - as many have pointed out - is opposite to the low-to-high development of sensitivity (e.g., cited: Cohen & Fermin 1978; Caus Capdevila et al 2021).
(c) High frequency hearing in songbirds at hatching is several orders of magnitude better than in chickens and ducks at the same age, even though songbirds are altricial (e.g., at 4kHz, flycatcher: 47dB, chicken-duck: 90dB; at 5kHz, flycatcher: 65dB, chicken-duck: 115dB; Korneeva et al 2006, Saunders et al 1974). That is because Galliformes are low-frequency specialists, according to both anatomical and ecological evidence, with calls peaking at 0.8 to 1.2kHz rather than 2-6kHz in songbirds. It is incorrect to conclude that altricial embryos cannot perceive high frequencies because low-frequency specialist precocial birds do not (L250;261).
The references used to support the statement on a very high threshold for precocial birds above 6kHz are also wrong (L250). Katayama 1985 did not test embryos, nor frequency tones. Neither of these two references tested ducks.
(11) Incorrect statements do not reflect findings from the references cited
For example:
(a) "in altricial bird species hearing typically starts after hatching" (L12, in abstract), "with little to no functional hearing during embryonic stages (Woolley, 2017)." (L33).
There is no evidence, in any species, to support these statements. This is only a - commonly repeated - assumption, not actually based on any data. On the contrary, the extremely limited evidence to date shows the opposite, with zebra finch embryos showing ZENK activation in the auditory cortex in response to song playback (Rivera et al, 2018, not cited).
The book chapter cited (Woolley 2017) acknowledges this lack of evidence, and, in the context of song learning, provides as only references (prior to 2018), 2 studies showing that songbirds do not develop a normal song if the song tutor is removed before 10d post-hatch. That nestlings cannot memorise (to later reproduce) complex signals heard before d10 does not mean that they are deaf to any sound before day 10.
Studies showing hearing in young songbird nestlings (see point 6 above) also contradict these statements.
(b) "Zebra finch embryos supposedly are epigenetically guided to adapt to high temperatures by their parents high-frequency "heat calls" " (L36 and L135).
This is an extremely vague and meaningless description of these results, which cannot be assessed by readers, even though these results are presented as a major justification for the present study. Rather than giving an interpretation of what "supposedly" may occur, it would be appropriate to simply synthesize the empirical evidence provided in these papers. They showed that embryonic exposure to heat-calls, as opposed to control contact calls, alters a suite of physiological and behavioural traits in nestlings, including how growth and cellular physiology respond to high temperatures. This also leads to carry-over effects on song learning and reproductive fitness in adulthood.
(c) "The acoustic communication in precocial mallard ducks depends specifically on the low-frequency auditory sensitivity of the embryo (Gottlieb, 1975)" (L253)
The study cited (Gottlieb, 1975) demonstrates exactly the opposite of this statement: it shows that duckling embryos, not only perceive high frequency sounds (relative to the species frequency range), but also NEED this exposure to display normal audition and behaviour post-hatch. Specifically, it shows that duckling embryos deprived of exposure to their own high-frequency calls (at 2 kHz), failed to identify maternal calls post-hatch because of their abnormal insensitivity to higher frequencies, which was later confirmed by directly testing their auditory perception of tones (Dimitrieva & Gottlieb, 1994).
(12) Considering all of the mistakes and distortions highlighted above, it would be very premature to conclude, based on these results and statements, that altricial avian embryos are not sensitive to sound. This study provides no actual scientific ground to support this conclusion.
