Literature DB >> 31030219

A broad filter between call frequency and peripheral auditory sensitivity in northern grasshopper mice (Onychomys leucogaster).

Dana M Green1, Tucker Scolman2, O'neil W Guthrie3,4, Bret Pasch2,4,5.   

Abstract

Acoustic communication is a fundamental component of mate and competitor recognition in a variety of taxa and requires animals to detect and differentiate among acoustic stimuli (Bradbury and Vehrencamp in Principles of animal communication, 2nd edn., Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, 2011). The matched filter hypothesis predicts a correspondence between peripheral auditory tuning of receivers and properties of species-specific acoustic signals, but few studies have assessed this relationship in rodents. We recorded vocalizations and measured auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) in northern grasshopper mice (Onychomys leucogaster), a species that produces long-distance calls to advertise their presence to rivals and potential mates. ABR data indicate the highest sensitivity (28.33 ± 9.07 dB SPL re: 20 μPa) at 10 kHz, roughly corresponding to the fundamental frequency (11.6 ± 0.63 kHz) of long-distance calls produced by conspecifics. However, the frequency range of peripheral auditory sensitivity was broad (8-24 kHz), indicating the potential to detect both the harmonics of conspecific calls and vocalizations of sympatric heterospecifics. Our findings provide support for the matched filter hypothesis extended to include other ecologically relevant stimuli. Our study contributes important baseline information about the sensory ecology of a unique rodent to the study of sound perception.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Acoustic communication; Auditory brainstem response; Matched filter; Onychomys

Year:  2019        PMID: 31030219     DOI: 10.1007/s00359-019-01338-0

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


  48 in total

1.  Avian dependence on sound pressure level as an auditory distance cue.

Authors: 
Journal:  Anim Behav       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 2.844

2.  Cochlear mechanisms from a phylogenetic viewpoint.

Authors:  G A Manley
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2000-10-24       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Hearing and sound localization in blind mole rats (Spalax ehrenbergi).

Authors:  R S Heffner; H E Heffner
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 3.208

Review 4.  Types and functions of ultrasonic vocalizations in laboratory rats and mice.

Authors:  Christine V Portfors
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 1.232

5.  Auditory brainstem responses in 10 inbred strains of mice.

Authors:  Xiaoming Zhou; Philip H-S Jen; Kevin L Seburn; Wayne N Frankel; Qing Y Zheng
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2006-03-03       Impact factor: 3.252

6.  Efficient encoding of vocalizations in the auditory midbrain.

Authors:  Lars A Holmstrom; Lonneke B M Eeuwes; Patrick D Roberts; Christine V Portfors
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2010-01-20       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Operant methods for mouse psychoacoustics.

Authors:  Karin B Klink; Garnet Bendig; Georg M Klump
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2006-02

8.  Evolution of calls and auditory tuning in the Physalaemus pustulosus species group.

Authors:  W Wilczynski; A S Rand; M J Ryan
Journal:  Brain Behav Evol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 1.808

9.  Measurement of the auditory brainstem response (ABR) to study auditory sensitivity in mice.

Authors:  James F Willott
Journal:  Curr Protoc Neurosci       Date:  2006-02

10.  Production of ultrasonic vocalizations by Peromyscus mice in the wild.

Authors:  Matina C Kalcounis-Rueppell; Maarten J Vonhof; Jackie D Metheny
Journal:  Front Zool       Date:  2006-02-28       Impact factor: 3.172

View more
  3 in total

1.  Physiological Evidence for Delayed Age-related Hearing Loss in Two Long-lived Rodent Species (Peromyscus leucopus and P. californicus).

Authors:  Grace Capshaw; Sergio Vicencio-Jimenez; Laurel A Screven; Kali Burke; Madison M Weinberg; Amanda M Lauer
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2022-07-26

2.  Best sensitivity of temporal modulation transfer functions in laboratory mice matches the amplitude modulation embedded in vocalizations.

Authors:  Huaizhen Cai; Micheal L Dent
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 2.482

3.  Vocal divergence is concordant with genomic evidence for strong reproductive isolation in grasshopper mice (Onychomys).

Authors:  Polly Campbell; Lena Arévalo; Heather Martin; Charles Chen; Shuzhen Sun; Ashlee H Rowe; Michael S Webster; Jeremy B Searle; Bret Pasch
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2019-11-06       Impact factor: 2.912

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.