Literature DB >> 16982165

Hearing in large (Eidolon helvum) and small (Cynopterus brachyotis) non-echolocating fruit bats.

R S Heffner1, G Koay, H E Heffner.   

Abstract

Comparing the hearing abilities of echolocating and non-echolocating bats can provide insight into the effect of echolocation on more basic hearing abilities. Toward this end, we determined the audiograms of two species of non-echolocating bats, the straw-colored fruit bat (Eidolon helvum), a large (230-350 g) African fruit bat, and the dog-faced fruit bat (Cynopterus brachyotis), a small (30-45 g) bat native to India and Southeast Asia. A conditioned suppression/avoidance procedure with a fruit juice reward was used for testing. At 60 dB SPL, the hearing range of E. helvum extends from 1.38 to 41 kHz with best sensitivity at 8k Hz; the hearing range of C. brachyotis extends from 2.63 to 70 kHz with best sensitivity at 10 kHz. As with all other bats tested so far, neither species was able to hear below 500 Hz, suggesting that they may not use a time code for perceiving pitch. Comparison of the high-frequency hearing abilities of echolocating and non-echolocating bats suggests that the use of laryngeal echolocation has resulted in additional selective pressure to hear high frequencies. However, the typical high-frequency sensitivity of small non-echolocating mammals would have been sufficient to support initial echolocation in the early evolution of bats, a finding that supports the possibility of multiple origins of echolocation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16982165     DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2006.06.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  8 in total

1.  Use of binaural cues for sound localization in large and small non-echolocating bats: Eidolon helvum and Cynopterus brachyotis.

Authors:  Rickye S Heffner; Gimseong Koay; Henry E Heffner
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Thermocron iButton and iBBat temperature dataloggers emit ultrasound.

Authors:  Craig K R Willis; Joel W Jameson; Paul A Faure; Justin G Boyles; Virgil Brack; Tom H Cervone
Journal:  J Comp Physiol B       Date:  2009-05-26       Impact factor: 2.200

3.  Bats are unusually insensitive to brief low-frequency tones.

Authors:  Rickye S Heffner; Gimseong Koay; Henry E Heffner
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2019-05-30       Impact factor: 1.836

4.  Sound localization in common vampire bats: acuity and use of the binaural time cue by a small mammal.

Authors:  Rickye S Heffner; Gimseong Koay; Henry E Heffner
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Sound localization acuity and its relation to vision in large and small fruit-eating bats: II. Non-echolocating species, Eidolon helvum and Cynopterus brachyotis.

Authors:  R S Heffner; G Koay; H E Heffner
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2008-05-13       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Hearing in American leaf-nosed bats. IV: the Common vampire bat, Desmodus rotundus.

Authors:  Rickye S Heffner; Gimseong Koay; Henry E Heffner
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2012-11-27       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Auditory opportunity and visual constraint enabled the evolution of echolocation in bats.

Authors:  Jeneni Thiagavel; Clément Cechetto; Sharlene E Santana; Lasse Jakobsen; Eric J Warrant; John M Ratcliffe
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2018-01-08       Impact factor: 14.919

8.  Evolutionary origins of ultrasonic hearing and laryngeal echolocation in bats inferred from morphological analyses of the inner ear.

Authors:  Kalina Tj Davies; Ibnu Maryanto; Stephen J Rossiter
Journal:  Front Zool       Date:  2013-01-30       Impact factor: 3.172

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.