Literature DB >> 16088388

The effects of time, space and spectrum on auditory grouping in túngara frogs.

H E Farris1, A Stanley Rand, Michael J Ryan.   

Abstract

Male túngara frogs (Physalaemus pustulosus) produce complex calls consisting of two components, a approximately 350 ms FM sweep called the "whine" followed by up to seven approximately 40 ms harmonic bursts called "chucks". In order to choose and locate a calling male, females attending to choruses must group call components into auditory streams to correctly assign calls to their sources. Previously we showed that spatial cues play a limited role in grouping: calls with normal spectra and temporal structure are grouped over wide angular separations (< or =135 degrees ). In this study we again use phonotaxis to first test whether an alternative cue, the sequence of call components, plays a role in auditory grouping and second, whether grouping is mediated by peripheral or central mechanisms. We found that while grouping is not limited to the natural call sequence, it does vary with the relative onset times of the two calls. To test whether overlapping stimulation in the periphery is required for grouping, the whine and chuck were filtered to restrict their spectra to the sensitivity ranges of the amphibian and basilar papillae, respectively. For these dichotic-like stimuli, grouping still occurred (albeit only to 45 degrees separation), suggesting that stream formation is mediated by central mechanisms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16088388     DOI: 10.1007/s00359-005-0041-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol        ISSN: 0340-7594            Impact factor:   1.836


  17 in total

1.  Effects of frequency and level on auditory stream segregation.

Authors:  M M Rose; B C Moore
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Hearing lips and seeing voices.

Authors:  H McGurk; J MacDonald
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1976 Dec 23-30       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Female mate choice in a neotropical frog.

Authors:  M J Ryan
Journal:  Science       Date:  1980-07-25       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Some factors influencing comodulation masking release and across-channel masking.

Authors:  M L Hicks; S P Bacon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Computer simulation of auditory stream segregation in alternating-tone sequences.

Authors:  M W Beauvois; R Meddis
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Minimun differences of level and frequency for perceptual fission of tone sequences ABAB.

Authors:  L P van Noorden
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1977-04       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Hearing with the third ear: dichotic perception of a melody without monaural familiarity cues.

Authors:  M Kubovy; J E Cutting; R M McGuire
Journal:  Science       Date:  1974-10-18       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Two-tone suppression in auditory nerve fibers of the green treefrog (Hyla cinerea).

Authors:  G Ehret; A J Moffat; R R Capranica
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1983-06       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Sexual selection in female perceptual space: how female túngara frogs perceive and respond to complex population variation in acoustic mating signals.

Authors:  Michael J Ryan; A Stanley Rand
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 3.694

10.  THE SENSORY BASIS OF SEXUAL SELECTION FOR COMPLEX CALLS IN THE TÚNGARA FROG, PHYSALAEMUS PUSTULOSUS (SEXUAL SELECTION FOR SENSORY EXPLOITATION).

Authors:  Michael J Ryan; A Stanley Rand
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 3.694

View more
  17 in total

1.  Receiver psychology turns 20: is it time for a broader approach?

Authors:  Cory T Miller; Mark A Bee
Journal:  Anim Behav       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 2.844

2.  Relative comparisons of call parameters enable auditory grouping in frogs.

Authors:  Hamilton E Farris; Michael J Ryan
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2011-08-02       Impact factor: 14.919

3.  Schema vs. primitive perceptual grouping: the relative weighting of sequential vs. spatial cues during an auditory grouping task in frogs.

Authors:  Hamilton E Farris; Michael J Ryan
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2017-02-15       Impact factor: 1.836

Review 4.  Sound source localization and segregation with internally coupled ears: the treefrog model.

Authors:  Mark A Bee; Jakob Christensen-Dalsgaard
Journal:  Biol Cybern       Date:  2016-10-12       Impact factor: 2.086

5.  A precedence effect underlies preferences for calls with leading pulses in the grey treefrog, Hyla versicolor.

Authors:  Vincent T Marshall; H Carl Gerhardt
Journal:  Anim Behav       Date:  2010-07-01       Impact factor: 2.844

Review 6.  Sound source perception in anuran amphibians.

Authors:  Mark A Bee
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  2012-01-20       Impact factor: 6.627

7.  Spatial hearing in Cope's gray treefrog: I. Open and closed loop experiments on sound localization in the presence and absence of noise.

Authors:  Michael S Caldwell; Mark A Bee
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2014-02-07       Impact factor: 1.836

8.  Spatial hearing in Cope's gray treefrog: II. Frequency-dependent directionality in the amplitude and phase of tympanum vibrations.

Authors:  Michael S Caldwell; Norman Lee; Katrina M Schrode; Anastasia R Johns; Jakob Christensen-Dalsgaard; Mark A Bee
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2014-02-07       Impact factor: 1.836

9.  Do frog-eating bats perceptually bind the complex components of frog calls?

Authors:  Patricia L Jones; Hamilton E Farris; Michael J Ryan; Rachel A Page
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2013-01-16       Impact factor: 1.836

10.  Treefrogs as animal models for research on auditory scene analysis and the cocktail party problem.

Authors:  Mark A Bee
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2014-01-11       Impact factor: 2.997

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.