Literature DB >> 9319725

Directional sound processing and interaural sound transmission in a small and a large grasshopper

.   

Abstract

Physical mechanisms involved in directional hearing are investigated in two species of short-horned grasshoppers that differ in body length by a factor of 3­4. The directional cues (the effects of the direction of sound incidence on the amplitude and phase angle of the sounds at the ears) are more pronounced in the larger animal, but the scaling is not simple. At high frequencies (10­20 kHz), the sound pressures at the ears of the larger species (Schistocerca gregaria) differ sufficiently to provide a useful directionality. In contrast, at low frequencies (3­5 kHz), the ears must be acoustically coupled and work as pressure difference receivers. At 3­5 kHz, the interaural sound transmission is approximately 0.5 (that is, when a tympanum is driven by a sound pressure of unit amplitude at its outer surface, the tympanum of the opposite ear receives a sound pressure with an amplitude of 0.5 through the interaural pathway). The interaural transmission decreases with frequency, and above 10 kHz it is only 0.1­0.2. It still has a significant effect on the directionality, however, because the directional cues are large. In the smaller species (Chorthippus biguttulus), the interaural sound transmission is also around 0.5 at 5 kHz, but the directionality is poor. The reason for this is not the modest directional cues, but rather the fact that the transmitted sound is not sufficiently delayed for the ear to exploit the directional cues. Above 7 kHz, the transmission increases to approximately 0.8 and the transmission delay increases; this allows the ear to become more directional, despite the still modest directional cues.

Entities:  

Year:  1995        PMID: 9319725     DOI: 10.1242/jeb.198.9.1817

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Biol        ISSN: 0022-0949            Impact factor:   3.312


  8 in total

1.  Channel noise from both slow adaptation currents and fast currents is required to explain spike-response variability in a sensory neuron.

Authors:  Karin Fisch; Tilo Schwalger; Benjamin Lindner; Andreas V M Herz; Jan Benda
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2012-11-28       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  The role of pressure difference reception in the directional hearing of budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus).

Authors:  Ole N Larsen; Robert J Dooling; Axel Michelsen
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2006-06-08       Impact factor: 1.836

3.  Animals and ICE: meaning, origin, and diversity.

Authors:  J Leo van Hemmen; Jakob Christensen-Dalsgaard; Catherine E Carr; Peter M Narins
Journal:  Biol Cybern       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 2.086

4.  Acoustical coupling of lizard eardrums.

Authors:  Jakob Christensen-Dalsgaard; Geoffrey A Manley
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2008-07-22

5.  Listening to the environment: hearing differences from an epigenetic effect in solitarious and gregarious locusts.

Authors:  Shira D Gordon; Joseph C Jackson; Stephen M Rogers; James F C Windmill
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2014-11-22       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 6.  Directional hearing: from biophysical binaural cues to directional hearing outdoors.

Authors:  Heiner Römer
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2014-09-18       Impact factor: 1.836

7.  Matched filters, mate choice and the evolution of sexually selected traits.

Authors:  Konstantinos Kostarakos; Manfred Hartbauer; Heiner Römer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2008-08-20       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  A neural mechanism for time-window separation resolves ambiguity of adaptive coding.

Authors:  K Jannis Hildebrandt; Bernhard Ronacher; R Matthias Hennig; Jan Benda
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2015-03-11       Impact factor: 8.029

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.