Literature DB >> 7930082

The brain-stem auditory-evoked response in the big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) to clicks and frequency-modulated sweeps.

R Burkard1, C F Moss.   

Abstract

Three experiments were performed to evaluate the effects of stimulus level on the brain-stem auditory-evoked response (BAER) in the big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), a species that uses frequency-modulated (FM) sonar sounds for echolocation. In experiment 1, the effects of click level on the BAER were investigated. Clicks were presented at levels of 30 to 90 dB pSPL in 10-dB steps. Each animal responded reliably to clicks at levels of 50 dB pSPL and above, showing a BAER containing four peaks in the first 3-4 ms from click onset (waves i-iv). With increasing click level, BAER peak amplitude increased and peak latency decreased. A decrease in the i-iv interval also occurred with increasing click level. In experiment 2, stimuli were 1-ms linear FM sweeps, decreasing in frequency from 100 to 20 kHz. Stimulus levels ranged from 20 to 90 dB pSPL. BAERs to FM sweeps were observed in all animals for levels of 40 dB pSPL and above. These responses were similar to the click-evoked BAER in waveform morphology, with the notable exception of an additional peak observed at the higher levels of FM sweeps. This peak (wave ia) occurred prior to the first wave seen at lower levels (wave ib). As the level of the FM sweep increased, there was a decrease in peak latency and an increase in peak amplitude. Similarity in the magnitude and behavior of the i-iv and ib-iv intervals suggests that wave ib to FM sweeps is the homolog of the wave i response to click stimuli. Experiment 3 tested the hypothesis that wave ia represented activity emanating from more basal cochlear regions than wave ib. FM sweeps (100-20 kHz) were presented at 90 dB pSPL, and broadband noise was raised in level until the BAER was eliminated. This "masked threshold" occurred at 85 dB SPL of noise. At masked threshold, the broadband noise was steeply high-pass filtered at five cutoff frequencies ranging from 20 to 80 kHz. Generally, wave ia was eliminated for masker cutoff frequencies of 56.6 kHz and below, while wave ib was typically observed for masker cutoffs down to 28.3 kHz. The results of these three experiments are compared and contrasted with data from other mammalian BAER studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7930082     DOI: 10.1121/1.410318

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


  10 in total

1.  Perception of echo delay is disrupted by small temporal misalignment of echo harmonics in bat sonar.

Authors:  Mary E Bates; James A Simmons
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2011-02-01       Impact factor: 3.312

2.  Spatially selective auditory responses in the superior colliculus of the echolocating bat.

Authors:  D E Valentine; C F Moss
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1997-03-01       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Neural representation of the self-heard biosonar click in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus).

Authors:  James J Finneran; Jason Mulsow; Dorian S Houser; Carolyn E Schlundt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Effects of filtering of harmonics from biosonar echoes on delay acuity by big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus).

Authors:  Mary E Bates; James A Simmons
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  A comprehensive computational model of animal biosonar signal processing.

Authors:  Chen Ming; Stephanie Haro; Andrea Megela Simmons; James A Simmons
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2021-02-17       Impact factor: 4.475

6.  Non-invasive auditory brainstem responses to FM sweeps in awake big brown bats.

Authors:  Andrea Megela Simmons; Amaro Tuninetti; Brandon M Yeoh; James A Simmons
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2022-06-28       Impact factor: 2.389

7.  Echo-delay resolution in sonar images of the big brown bat, Eptesicus fuscus.

Authors:  J A Simmons; M J Ferragamo; C F Moss
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1998-10-13       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Target shape perception and clutter rejection use the same mechanism in bat sonar.

Authors:  Michaela Warnecke; James A Simmons
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2016-04-04       Impact factor: 1.836

9.  Hearing sensitivity and amplitude coding in bats are differentially shaped by echolocation calls and social calls.

Authors:  Ella Z Lattenkamp; Martina Nagy; Markus Drexl; Sonja C Vernes; Lutz Wiegrebe; Mirjam Knörnschild
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 5.349

10.  Development of hearing in the big brown bat.

Authors:  Doreen Möckel; Thomas Groulx; Paul A Faure
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2020-11-16       Impact factor: 1.836

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.