Literature DB >> 3783503

The detection of phantom targets in noise by serotine bats; negative evidence for the coherent receiver.

N Troest, B Møhl.   

Abstract

Using a target simulator three serotine bats, Eptesicus serotinus, were trained to judge whether a phantom target was present or absent. The echolocation sounds emitted by the bats during the detection were intercepted by a microphone, amplified and returned by a loudspeaker as an artificial echo, with a delay of 3.2 ms and a sound level determined by the overall gain and cry amplitude. The cry level of each pulse was measured and the echo level received by the bat was calculated. The target was presented in 50% of the trials and the gain adjusted using conventional up/down procedures. Under these conditions between 40 and 48 dB peSPL were required for 50% detection (Figs. 2, 3). In a subsequent experiment the phantom target was masked with white noise (No) with a spectrum level of -113 dB re. 1 Pa X Hz-1/2. The thresholds were increased by 7-14 dB. Energy density (S) of a single pulse was measured and used to estimate S/No, which ranged from 36-49 dB at threshold. Theoretically the coherent receiver model predicts the ratio between hits and false alarms observed for the bats at a S/No of ca. 1-2 dB. Since the bats require 40-50 dB higher S/No (Fig. 3), this is taken as negative evidence for coherent reception (cross correlation). Furthermore, a strong sensitivity to clutter was found since there seemed to exist a fixed relationship between thresholds and clutter level.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1986        PMID: 3783503     DOI: 10.1007/bf00604175

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


  7 in total

1.  Decision processes in perception.

Authors:  J SWETS; W P TANNER; T G BIRDSALL
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1961-09       Impact factor: 8.934

2.  Perception of echo phase information in bat sonar.

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

3.  The resolution of target range by echolocating bats.

Authors:  J A Simmons
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1973-07       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Echolocation in bats: signal processing of echoes for target range.

Authors:  J A Simmons
Journal:  Science       Date:  1971-03-05       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Accuracy of distance measurement in the bat Eptesicus fuscus: theoretical aspects and computer simulations.

Authors:  D Menne; H Hackbarth
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1986-02       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Automatic gain control in the bat's sonar receiver and the neuroethology of echolocation.

Authors:  S A Kick; J A Simmons
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1984-11       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Normal hearing thresholds for clicks.

Authors:  D R Stapells; T W Picton; A D Smith
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1982-07       Impact factor: 1.840

  7 in total
  8 in total

1.  Echolocation range and wingbeat period match in aerial-hawking bats.

Authors:  M W Holderied; O von Helversen
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2003-11-07       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  The transfer function of a target limits the jitter detection threshold with signals of echolocating FM-bats.

Authors:  Kristian Beedholm
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2006-01-03       Impact factor: 1.836

3.  A comparison of signal detection between an echolocating dolphin and an optimal receiver.

Authors:  W W Au; D A Pawloski
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A       Date:  1989-01       Impact factor: 1.836

4.  Integration time for short broad band clicks in echolocating FM-bats (Eptesicus fuscus).

Authors:  A Surlykke; O Bojesen
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 1.836

5.  Spatial unmasking in the echolocating Big Brown Bat, Eptesicus fuscus.

Authors:  Susan Sümer; Annette Denzinger; Hans-Ulrich Schnitzler
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2009-03-05       Impact factor: 1.836

6.  Arctiid moth clicks can degrade the accuracy of range difference discrimination in echolocating big brown bats, Eptesicus fuscus.

Authors:  L A Miller
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 1.836

7.  Detection of targets colocalized in clutter by big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus).

Authors:  Sarah A Stamper; James A Simmons; Caroline M Delong; Rebecca Bragg
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Discrimination of two-wavefront echoes by the big brown bat, Eptesicus fuscus: behavioral experiments and receiver simulations.

Authors:  J Mogdans; H U Schnitzler; J Ostwald
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 1.836

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.