Literature DB >> 11756654

Mice and humans perceive multiharmonic communication sounds in the same way.

Günter Ehret1, Sabine Riecke.   

Abstract

Vowels and voiced consonants of human speech and most mammalian vocalizations consist of harmonically structured sounds. The frequency contours of formants in the sounds determine their spectral shape and timbre and carry, in human speech, important phonetic and prosodic information to be communicated. Steady-state partitions of vowels are discriminated and identified mainly on the basis of harmonics or formants having been resolved by the critical-band filters of the auditory system and then grouped together. Speech-analog processing and perception of vowel-like communication sounds in mammalian vocal repertoires has not been demonstrated so far. Here, we synthesize 11 call models and a tape loop with natural wriggling calls of mouse pups and show that house mice perceive this communication call in the same way as we perceive speech vowels: they need the presence of a minimum number of formants (three formants-in this case, at 3.8 + 7.6 + 11.4 kHz), they resolve formants by the critical-band mechanism, group formants together for call identification, perceive the formant structure rather continuously, may detect the missing fundamental of a harmonic complex, and all of these occur in a natural communication situation without any training or behavioral constraints. Thus, wriggling-call perception in mice is comparable with unconditioned vowel discrimination and perception in prelinguistic human infants and points to evolutionary old rules of handling speech sounds in the human auditory system up to the perceptual level.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11756654      PMCID: PMC117585          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.012361999

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  13 in total

1.  A spectral network model of pitch perception.

Authors:  M A Cohen; S Grossberg; L L Wyse
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Combination-sensitive neurons in the inferior colliculus.

Authors:  D H Mittmann; J J Wenstrup
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Auditory and phonetic memory codes in the discrimination of consonants and vowels.

Authors:  David B Pisoni
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1973-06-01

4.  Age-dependent hearing loss in normal hearing mice.

Authors:  G Ehret
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  1974-11

5.  Pitch, consonance, and harmony.

Authors:  E Terhardt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1974-05       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  The sounds of infancy.

Authors:  P Ostwald
Journal:  Dev Med Child Neurol       Date:  1972-06       Impact factor: 5.449

7.  Combination-sensitive neurons in the primary auditory cortex of the mustached bat.

Authors:  D C Fitzpatrick; J S Kanwal; J A Butman; N Suga
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  Perceiving vowels in the presence of another sound: constraints on formant perception.

Authors:  C J Darwin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1984-12       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Frequencies dominant in the perception of the pitch of complex sounds.

Authors:  R J Ritsma
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1967-07       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Left hemisphere advantage in the mouse brain for recognizing ultrasonic communication calls.

Authors:  G Ehret
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1987 Jan 15-21       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  21 in total

Review 1.  Balance or imbalance: inhibitory circuits for direction selectivity in the auditory system.

Authors:  Cal F Rabang; Jeff Lin; Guangying K Wu
Journal:  Cell Mol Life Sci       Date:  2015-02-01       Impact factor: 9.261

2.  Gamma oscillations in the auditory cortex of awake rats.

Authors:  Paulo Vianney-Rodrigues; Ovidiu D Iancu; John P Welsh
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2010-11-09       Impact factor: 3.386

Review 3.  Contextual modulation of sound processing in the auditory cortex.

Authors:  C Angeloni; M N Geffen
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  2017-11-07       Impact factor: 6.627

Review 4.  Translating mouse vocalizations: prosody and frequency modulation.

Authors:  G P Lahvis; E Alleva; M L Scattoni
Journal:  Genes Brain Behav       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.449

5.  Distinct cortical pathways for processing tool versus animal sounds.

Authors:  James W Lewis; Julie A Brefczynski; Raymond E Phinney; John J Janik; Edgar A DeYoe
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2005-05-25       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  Grouping in auditory temporal perception and vocal production is mutually adapted: the case of wriggling calls of mice.

Authors:  Simone Gaub; Günter Ehret
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2005-08-02       Impact factor: 1.836

Review 7.  Auditory cortex of bats and primates: managing species-specific calls for social communication.

Authors:  Jagmeet S Kanwal; Josef P Rauschecker
Journal:  Front Biosci       Date:  2007-05-01

8.  Time-critical integration of formants for perception of communication calls in mice.

Authors:  Diana B Geissler; Günter Ehret
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2002-06-17       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 9.  Storing maternal memories: hypothesizing an interaction of experience and estrogen on sensory cortical plasticity to learn infant cues.

Authors:  Sunayana B Banerjee; Robert C Liu
Journal:  Front Neuroendocrinol       Date:  2013-08-01       Impact factor: 8.606

10.  Asic3(-/-) female mice with hearing deficit affects social development of pups.

Authors:  Wei-Li Wu; Chih-Hung Wang; Eagle Yi-Kung Huang; Chih-Cheng Chen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-08-04       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.