Literature DB >> 28197725

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

Hamilton E Farris1,2,3, Michael J Ryan4,5.   

Abstract

Perceptually, grouping sounds based on their sources is critical for communication. This is especially true in túngara frog breeding aggregations, where multiple males produce overlapping calls that consist of an FM 'whine' followed by harmonic bursts called 'chucks'. Phonotactic females use at least two cues to group whines and chucks: whine-chuck spatial separation and sequence. Spatial separation is a primitive cue, whereas sequence is schema-based, as chuck production is morphologically constrained to follow whines, meaning that males cannot produce the components simultaneously. When one cue is available, females perceptually group whines and chucks using relative comparisons: components with the smallest spatial separation or those closest to the natural sequence are more likely grouped. By simultaneously varying the temporal sequence and spatial separation of a single whine and two chucks, this study measured between-cue perceptual weighting during a specific grouping task. Results show that whine-chuck spatial separation is a stronger grouping cue than temporal sequence, as grouping is more likely for stimuli with smaller spatial separation and non-natural sequence than those with larger spatial separation and natural sequence. Compared to the schema-based whine-chuck sequence, we propose that spatial cues have less variance, potentially explaining their preferred use when grouping during directional behavioral responses.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Auditory scene analysis; Auditory stream; Cocktail party problem; Mate choice; Phonotaxis; Physalaemus pustulosus

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28197725     DOI: 10.1007/s00359-017-1149-9

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


  25 in total

1.  Effectiveness of spatial cues, prosody, and talker characteristics in selective attention.

Authors:  C J Darwin; R W Hukin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Segregating early physical and syntactic processes in auditory sentence comprehension.

Authors:  Anja Hahne; Erich Schröger; Angela D Friederici
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2002-03-04       Impact factor: 1.837

3.  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

4.  The role of syntax in maintaining the integrity of streams of speech.

Authors:  Gerald Kidd; Christine R Mason; Virginia Best
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Binaural integration of melodic patterns.

Authors:  D Deutsch
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1979-05

6.  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

7.  Stimulus change detection in phasic auditory units in the frog midbrain: frequency and ear specific adaptation.

Authors:  Abhilash Ponnath; Kim L Hoke; Hamilton E Farris
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2013-01-24       Impact factor: 1.836

Review 8.  The cocktail party problem: what is it? How can it be solved? And why should animal behaviorists study it?

Authors:  Mark A Bee; Christophe Micheyl
Journal:  J Comp Psychol       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 2.231

9.  Primitive auditory stream segregation: a neurophysiological study in the songbird forebrain.

Authors:  Mark A Bee; Georg M Klump
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2004-03-24       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 10.  Properties of auditory stream formation.

Authors:  Brian C J Moore; Hedwig E Gockel
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2012-04-05       Impact factor: 6.237

View more
  1 in total

1.  Tuned in to communication sounds: Neuronal sensitivity in the túngara frog midbrain to frequency modulated signals.

Authors:  Abhilash Ponnath; Michael J Ryan; Zhide Fang; Hamilton E Farris
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-05-19       Impact factor: 3.752

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.