Literature DB >> 18034247

Phase sensitivity in bat sonar revisited.

Sven Schörnich1, Lutz Wiegrebe.   

Abstract

An echolocating bat produces echoes consisting of the convolution of echolocation call and the impulse response (IR) of the ensonified object. A crucial question in animal sonar is whether bats are able to extract this IR from the echo. The bat inner ear generates a frequency representation of call and echo and IR extraction in the frequency domain requires accurate analysis of both magnitude and phase information. Previous studies investigating the phase sensitivity of bats using a jitter paradigm reported a temporal acuity down to 10 ns, suggesting perfect sonar phase representation. In a phantom-target playback experiment, we investigate the perceptual phase sensitivity of the bat Phyllostomus discolor using a novel approach: instead of manipulating IR phase by changing IR delay (jitter paradigm), we randomized IR phase and thus lengthened the IR over time, leaving the magnitude spectrum unchanged. Our results show that phase sensitivity, as reflected in the analysis of signal duration, appears to be much lower than phase sensitivity, as reflected in the analysis of signal onset. The current data indicate that different temporal aspects of sonar processing are encoded with very different temporal resolution and thus an overall claim of "phase sensitivity" as such cannot be maintained.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18034247     DOI: 10.1007/s00359-007-0290-2

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


  21 in total

1.  Echolocation signals reflect niche differentiation in five sympatric congeneric bat species.

Authors:  Björn M Siemers; Hans-Ulrich Schnitzler
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2004-06-10       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Temporal coding in the frog auditory midbrain: the influence of duration and rise-fall time on the processing of complex amplitude-modulated stimuli.

Authors:  D M Gooler; A S Feng
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Bat sonar: an alternative interpretation of the 10-ns jitter result.

Authors:  K Beedholm; B Møhl
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 1.836

4.  Perception of echo phase information in bat sonar.

Authors:  J A Simmons
Journal:  Science       Date:  1979-06-22       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 5.  Some comments on the proposed perception of phase and nanosecond time disparities by echolocating bats.

Authors:  G D Pollak
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 1.836

6.  Temporal integration in the echolocating bat, Megaderma lyra.

Authors:  L Wiegrebe; S Schmidt
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1996-12-01       Impact factor: 3.208

Review 7.  Evidence for perception of fine echo delay and phase by the FM bat, Eptesicus fuscus.

Authors:  J A Simmons
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 1.836

8.  Echo delay versus spectral cues for temporal hyperacuity in the big brown bat, Eptesicus fuscus.

Authors:  J A Simmons; M J Ferragamo; M I Sanderson
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2003-07-23       Impact factor: 1.836

9.  Cochlear sensitivity in the lesser spear-nosed bat, Phyllostomus discolor.

Authors:  Anna Wittekindt; Markus Drexl; Manfred Kössl
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2004-09-18       Impact factor: 1.836

10.  Ambiguities in sound-duration selectivity by neurons in the inferior colliculus of the bat Molossus molossus from Cuba.

Authors:  Emanuel C Mora; Manfred Kössl
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2004-01-07       Impact factor: 2.714

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Complex echo classification by echo-locating bats: a review.

Authors:  Yossi Yovel; Matthias O Franz; Peter Stilz; Hans-Ulrich Schnitzler
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2010-09-17       Impact factor: 1.836

2.  A comprehensive computational model of animal biosonar signal processing.

Authors:  Chen Ming; Stephanie Haro; Andrea Megela Simmons; James A Simmons
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2021-02-17       Impact factor: 4.475

3.  Size does not matter: size-invariant echo-acoustic object classification.

Authors:  Daria Genzel; Lutz Wiegrebe
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2012-11-24       Impact factor: 1.836

4.  Size constancy in bat biosonar? Perceptual interaction of object aperture and distance.

Authors:  Melina Heinrich; Lutz Wiegrebe
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-22       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Flutter sensitivity in FM bats. Part I: delay modulation.

Authors:  A Leonie Baier; Lutz Wiegrebe
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2018-09-22       Impact factor: 1.836

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.