Literature DB >> 3260282

Biomechanics of vibration reception in the bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana.

T E Hetherington1.   

Abstract

The opercularis system (OPS) of amphibians consists of an opercularis muscle that connects the shoulder girdle skeleton to the operculum, a movable element in the oval window of the otic capsule. The role of the OPS in reception of vibrations was examined in bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) tested in various postures that manipulated differential motion between the shoulder girdle (the origin of the opercularis muscle) and skull (including the inner ear). Amplitude and phase relationship of motions of the suprascapular cartilage of the shoulder girdle and the posterior skull were also measured during these tests. 1. Microphonic responses to vertical vibrations from 25-200 Hz were typically highest when frogs were in a normal, sitting posture with the head held off the vibrating platform. Responses from animals in which the head directly contacted the platform were often less (by up to 10 dB at certain frequencies). Responses from all test positions were highest at lower frequencies, especially between 50-100 Hz. 2. Suprascapular accelerations were typically highest in the normal, sitting posture, and at lower frequencies (50-75 Hz) were often greater than that of the vibrating platform by up to 8 dB. The shoulder girdle skeleton of the bullfrog is therefore readily affected by vertical substrate motion. 3. The amplitude of microphonic responses in the different test postures did not correspond well with head acceleration. Rather, response amplitude corresponded best with the absolute difference between shoulder and head motion. For example, in the normal posture, suprascapular motion was much greater than head motion, and responses were relatively high. If only the head was vibrated, head motion was high and shoulder motion low, and responses also were relatively high. If the head and body were vibrated together, their motions were similar, and responses to the same platform accelerations were often reduced. Phase differences between shoulder and head motions were small at the frequencies examined and may be of little functional significance. The importance of differences in shoulder and head motion suggests that the resulting differential motion of the operculum and inner ear fluids can produce waves that stimulate appropriate end organs (such as the saccule). 4. Removal of the opercularis muscle reduced responses up to 18 dB at certain frequencies in some of the test postures. The most significant reductions were observed in those postures with a significant difference between shoulder and head motion (such as the normal posture).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3260282     DOI: 10.1007/bf00611995

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comp Physiol A            Impact factor:   1.836


  12 in total

1.  Compressional and surface waves in sand: used by desert scorpions to locate prey.

Authors:  P H Brownell
Journal:  Science       Date:  1977-07-29       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Comparative morphology of the amphibian opercularis system: I. General design features and functional interpretation.

Authors:  T E Hetherington; A P Jaslow; R E Lombard
Journal:  J Morphol       Date:  1986-10       Impact factor: 1.804

3.  Structural correlates of function in the "opercularis" muscle of amphibians.

Authors:  R P Becker; R E Lombard
Journal:  Cell Tissue Res       Date:  1977-01-04       Impact factor: 5.249

4.  Electromyography of the opercularis muscle of Rana catesbeiana: an amphibian tonic muscle.

Authors:  T E Hetherington; R E Lombard
Journal:  J Morphol       Date:  1983-01       Impact factor: 1.804

5.  Inner ear: dye injection reveals peripheral origins of specific sensitivities.

Authors:  E R Lewis; R A Baird; E L Leverenz; H Koyama
Journal:  Science       Date:  1982-03-26       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Acute seismic sensitivity in the bullfrog ear.

Authors:  H Koyama; E R Lewis; E L Leverenz; R A Baird
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  1982-10-28       Impact factor: 3.252

7.  Role of the opercularis muscle in seismic sensitivity in the bullfrog Rana catesbeiana.

Authors:  T E Hetherington
Journal:  J Exp Zool       Date:  1985-07

8.  The vertebrate ear as an exquisite seismic sensor.

Authors:  P M Narins; E R Lewis
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1984-11       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Do frogs communicate with seismic signals?

Authors:  E R Lewis; P M Narins
Journal:  Science       Date:  1985-01-11       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Physiological features of the opercularis muscle and their effects on vibration sensitivity in the bullfrog Rana catesbeiana.

Authors:  T E Hetherington
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 3.312

View more
  5 in total

1.  Sound and vibration sensitivity of VIIIth nerve fibers in the grassfrog, Rana temporaria.

Authors:  J Christensen-Dalsgaard; M B Jørgensen
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 1.836

Review 2.  Mechanics of the frog ear.

Authors:  Pim Van Dijk; Matthew J Mason; Richard L M Schoffelen; Peter M Narins; Sebastiaan W F Meenderink
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2010-02-10       Impact factor: 3.208

Review 3.  How do animals use substrate-borne vibrations as an information source?

Authors:  Peggy S M Hill
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  2009-07-11

4.  Earless toads sense low frequencies but miss the high notes.

Authors:  Molly C Womack; Jakob Christensen-Dalsgaard; Luis A Coloma; Juan C Chaparro; Kim L Hoke
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2017-10-11       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 5.  Mechanics of the exceptional anuran ear.

Authors:  Richard L M Schoffelen; Johannes M Segenhout; Pim van Dijk
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2008-04-03       Impact factor: 1.836

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.