Literature DB >> 9528116

Hearing and vocalizations of wild-caught Australian budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus).

S M Farabaugh1, M L Dent, R J Dooling.   

Abstract

This study examined the hearing and contact calls of wild-caught Australian budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus) and compared these data to hearing and vocalizations in the much more extensively studied domesticated budgerigar. The spectral energy in the contact calls of both wild-caught and domesticated budgerigars falls almost exclusively in the frequency of 2-4 kHz. Absolute and masked thresholds were similar in both groups of birds. Similar to the results found in domesticated birds, critical ratio functions for the wild-caught budgerigars decreased at frequencies of 1.0 kHz-2.86 kHz and then increased again dramatically at frequencies above 2.86 kHz.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9528116     DOI: 10.1037/0735-7036.112.1.74

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comp Psychol        ISSN: 0021-9940            Impact factor:   2.231


  9 in total

1.  Masked auditory thresholds in three species of birds, as measured by the auditory brainstem response (L).

Authors:  Isabelle C Noirot; Elizabeth F Brittan-Powell; Robert J Dooling
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Effects of selective auditory-nerve damage on the behavioral audiogram and temporal integration in the budgerigar.

Authors:  Stephanie J Wong; Kristina S Abrams; Kassidy N Amburgey; Yingxuan Wang; Kenneth S Henry
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2019-01-23       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Frequency discrimination in the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus).

Authors:  Michael S Osmanski; Xindong Song; Yueqi Guo; Xiaoqin Wang
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2016-08-03       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Why longer song elements are easier to detect: threshold level-duration functions in the Great Tit and comparison with human data.

Authors:  Nina U Pohl; Hans Slabbekoorn; Heinrich Neubauer; Peter Heil; Georg M Klump; Ulrike Langemann
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2013-01-22       Impact factor: 1.836

5.  Budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus) do not hear infrasound: the audiogram from 8 Hz to 10 kHz.

Authors:  Henry E Heffner; Gimseong Koay; Rickye S Heffner
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2016-09-28       Impact factor: 1.836

6.  The effect of altered auditory feedback on control of vocal production in budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus).

Authors:  Michael S Osmanski; Robert J Dooling
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Identifying cues for tone-in-noise detection using decision variable correlation in the budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus).

Authors:  Kenneth S Henry; Kassidy N Amburgey; Kristina S Abrams; Laurel H Carney
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Is consonance attractive to budgerigars? No evidence from a place preference study.

Authors:  Bernhard Wagner; Daniel L Bowling; Marisa Hoeschele
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2020-06-22       Impact factor: 3.084

9.  Constraints on vocal production learning in budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulates).

Authors:  Michael S Osmanski; Yoshimasa Seki; Robert J Dooling
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 1.986

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.