Literature DB >> 19640055

The effect of altered auditory feedback on control of vocal production in budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus).

Michael S Osmanski1, Robert J Dooling.   

Abstract

Budgerigars learn their vocalizations by reference to auditory information and they retain the ability to learn new vocalizations throughout life. Auditory feedback of these vocalizations was manipulated in three experiments by training birds to produce vocalizations while wearing small earphones. Experiments 1 and 2 examined the effect of background noise level (Lombard effect) and the effect of manipulating feedback level from self-produced vocalizations (Fletcher effect), respectively. Results show that birds exhibit both a Lombard effect and a Fletcher effect. Further analysis showed that changes in vocal intensity were accompanied by changes in call fundamental frequency and duration. Experiment 3 tested the effect of delaying or altering auditory feedback during vocal production. Results showed subsequent production of incomplete and distorted calls in both feedback conditions. These distortions included changes in the peak fundamental frequency, amplitude, duration, and spectrotemporal structure of calls. Delayed auditory feedback was most disruptive to subsequent calls when the delay was 25 ms. Longer delays resulted in fewer errors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19640055      PMCID: PMC2730712          DOI: 10.1121/1.3158928

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  39 in total

1.  Decrystallization of adult birdsong by perturbation of auditory feedback.

Authors:  A Leonardo; M Konishi
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1999-06-03       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 2.  Auditory feedback in learning and maintenance of vocal behaviour.

Authors:  M S Brainard; A J Doupe
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 34.870

3.  AN INFORMATION-FLOW MODEL OF THE ORGANIZATION OF MOTOR ACTIVITY. I: TRANSDUCTION, TRANSMISSION AND CENTRAL CONTROL OF SENSORY INFORMATION.

Authors:  R A CHASE
Journal:  J Nerv Ment Dis       Date:  1965-04       Impact factor: 2.254

4.  Precise auditory-vocal mirroring in neurons for learned vocal communication.

Authors:  J F Prather; S Peters; S Nowicki; R Mooney
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2008-01-17       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Effect of level of distracting noise upon speaking rate, duration and intensity.

Authors:  T D HANLEY; M D STEER
Journal:  J Speech Disord       Date:  1949-12

6.  Effects of noise on speech production: acoustic and perceptual analyses.

Authors:  W V Summers; D B Pisoni; R H Bernacki; R I Pedlow; M A Stokes
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Regulation of voice amplitude by the monkey.

Authors:  J M Sinnott; W C Stebbins; D B Moody
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1975-08       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Real-time contributions of auditory feedback to avian vocal motor control.

Authors:  Jon T Sakata; Michael S Brainard
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2006-09-20       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Effect of syringeal denervation in the budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus): the role of the syrinx in call production.

Authors:  J T Heaton; S M Farabaugh; S E Brauth
Journal:  Neurobiol Learn Mem       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 2.877

10.  Control of vocal production in budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus): selective reinforcement, call differentiation, and stimulus control.

Authors:  K Manabe; R J Dooling
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 1.777

View more
  18 in total

1.  A mechanism for frequency modulation in songbirds shared with humans.

Authors:  Ana Amador; Daniel Margoliash
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-07-03       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  Ambient noise induces independent shifts in call frequency and amplitude within the Lombard effect in echolocating bats.

Authors:  Steffen R Hage; Tinglei Jiang; Sean W Berquist; Jiang Feng; Walter Metzner
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-02-19       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 3.  Advantages of comparative studies in songbirds to understand the neural basis of sensorimotor integration.

Authors:  Karagh Murphy; Logan S James; Jon T Sakata; Jonathan F Prather
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-03-22       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Sensorimotor integration on a rapid time scale.

Authors:  Jinhong Luo; Ninad B Kothari; Cynthia F Moss
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-06-05       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  On the evolution of noise-dependent vocal plasticity in birds.

Authors:  Sophie Schuster; Sue Anne Zollinger; John A Lesku; Henrik Brumm
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2012-09-12       Impact factor: 3.703

6.  Vocal motor changes beyond the sensitive period for song plasticity.

Authors:  Logan S James; Jon T Sakata
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2014-07-23       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  Children's development of self-regulation in speech production.

Authors:  Ewen N MacDonald; Elizabeth K Johnson; Jaime Forsythe; Paul Plante; Kevin G Munhall
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2011-12-22       Impact factor: 10.834

8.  Higher songs of city birds may not be an individual response to noise.

Authors:  Sue Anne Zollinger; Peter J B Slater; Erwin Nemeth; Henrik Brumm
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2017-08-16       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Effect of auditory stimuli on conditioned vocal behavior of budgerigars.

Authors:  Yoshimasa Seki; Robert J Dooling
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 1.777

10.  Bird song and anthropogenic noise: vocal constraints may explain why birds sing higher-frequency songs in cities.

Authors:  Erwin Nemeth; Nadia Pieretti; Sue Anne Zollinger; Nicole Geberzahn; Jesko Partecke; Ana Catarina Miranda; Henrik Brumm
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2013-01-08       Impact factor: 5.349

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.