Novel schemes for hearing and orientation in insects

Current Opinion in Neurobiology

Volumn 12, Issue 6, 2002, Pages 715-720

  Robert, Daniel ^a   Göpfert, Martin C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY SYSTEM; DEPTH PERCEPTION; EAR; FLY; HEARING; INSECT; MOSQUITO; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SENSE ORGAN; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SOUND; SPACE; SPATIAL ORIENTATION;

EID: 0036904793     PISSN: 09594388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0959-4388(02)00378-1     Document Type: Review

References (56)

1. Hudspeth A.J. Mechanical amplification by hair cells. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 7:1997;480-486.
2. Hudspeth A.J. How the ear's works work. Nature. 341:1989;397-404.
3. Gillespie P.G., Walker R.G. Molecular basis of mechanosensory transduction. Nature. 413:2001;194-202.
4. Jarman A.P. Studies of mechanosensation using the fly. Hum Mol Genet. 11:2002;1215-1218.
5. Eberl D.F. Feeling the vibes: chordotonal mechanisms in insects. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 9:1999;389-393.
6. Dallos P. The active cochlea. J Neurosci. 12:1992;4575-4585.
7. Robles L., Ruggero M.A. Mechanics of the mammalian cochlea. Phys Rev. 81:2001;1305-1352.
8. De Vries H. Brownian movement and hearing. Physica. 14:1948;48-60.
9. Crawford A.C., Fettiplace R. The mechanical properties of ciliary hair bundles of turtle cochlear hair cells. J Physiol (Lond). 364:1985;359-379.
10. van Netten S.M., Kros C.J. Gating energies and forces of the mammalian hair cell transducer channel and related hair bundle mechanics. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B. 267:2000;1915-1923.
11. Moiseff A., Konishi M. Neuronal and behavioral sensitivity to binaural time differences in the owl. J Neurosci. 1:1981;40-48.
12. Grothe B., Klump G.M. Temporal processing in sensory systems. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 10:2000;467-473.
13. Fay R.R. Structure and function in sound discrimination among vertebrates. Webster D.B., Popper A.N., Fay R.R. The Evolutionary Biology of Hearing. 1992;229-263 Springer, New York.
14. Yager D.D. Structure, development and evolution of insect auditory systems. Micr Res Tech. 47:1999;380-400.
15. Römer H., Tautz J. Invertebrate auditory receptors. Advances in Comparative and Environmental Physiology. 1992;185-212 Springer, Berlin.
16. Hoy R.R., Robert D. Tympanal hearing in insects. Annu Rev Entomol. 41:1996;433-450.
17. Field L.H., Matheson T. Chordotonal organs in insects. Adv Insect Physiol. 27:1998;1-28.
18. Hoy R.R. Acute as a bug's ear: an informal discussion of hearing in insects. Hoy R.R., Popper A.N., Fay R.R. Comparative Hearing: Insects. 1998;1-17 Springer, New York.
19. Michelsen A. Biophysics of sound localization in insects. Hoy R.R., Popper A.N., Fay R.R. Comparative Hearing: Insects. 1998;18-62 Springer, New York.
20. th 32-33.
21. Middlebrooks J.C., Green D.M. Sound localization by human listeners. Annu Rev Psychol. 42:1991;135-159.
22. Wightman F.L., Kistler D.J. Monaural sound localization revisited. J Acoust Soc Am. 101:1997;1050-1063.
23. Kulkarni A., Colburn H.S. Role of spectral detail in sound-source localization. Nature. 396:1998;747-749.
24. Pollack G.S., Imaizumi K. Neural analysis of sound frequency in insects. Bioessays. 21:1999;295-303.
25. Wyttenbach R.A., May M.L., Hoy R.R. Categorical perception of sound frequency by crickets. Science. 273:1996;1542-1544.
26. Fonseca P.J., Münch D., Hennig R.M. How cicadas interpret acoustic signals. Nature. 405:2000;297-298.
27. Cade W.H. Acoustically orienting parasitoids: fly phonotaxis to cricket song. Science. 190:1975;1312-1313.
28. Robert D., Amoroso J., Hoy R.R. The evolutionary convergence of hearing in a parasitoid fly and its cricket host. Science. 258:1992;1135-1137.
29. Robert D., Hoy R.R. The evolutionary innovation of tympanal hearing in Diptera. Hoy R.R., Popper A.N., Fay R.R. Comparative Hearing: Insects. 1998;197-227 Springer, New York.
30. Robert D., Miles R.N., Hoy R.R. Directional hearing by mechanical coupling in the parasitoid fly Ormia ochracea. J Comp Physiol [A]. 179:1996;29-44.
31. Gerstner W., Kempter R., van Hemmen J.L., Wagner H. A neuronal learning rule for sub-millisecond temporal coding. Nature. 383:1996;76-81.
32. Rieke F., Warland D., de Ruyter van Steveninck R., Bialek W. Spikes: Exploring The Neural Code. 1997;189-235 MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.
33. Mason A.C., Oshinsky M.L., Hoy R.R. Hyperacute directional hearing in a microscale auditory system. Nature. 410:2001;686-690. This study shows the exquisitely accurate directional hearing achieved by the miniature ears of the fly Ormia ochracea. A positional change of the attracting sound source by as little as two degrees off the fly's midline is shown to elicit changes in oriented locomotion. Prominently, auditory receptor neurons respond with a temporally accurate single spike (70 μs jitter), which is independent of stimulus duration. Yet, jitter and absolute spiking latency decrease with increasing stimulus intensity. Acute directionality may rely on a spike time code that converges on a coincidence detector, an idea that is consistent with theoretical and experimental evidence for high resolution temporal coding in other animals (see [31,35,37]).
34. Miles R.N., Robert D., Hoy R.R. Mechanically coupled ears for directional hearing in the parasitoid fly Ormia ochracea. J Acoust Soc Am. 98:1995;3059-3070.
35. Rose G., Heiligenberg W. Temporal hyperacuity in electric fish. Nature. 318:1985;178-180.
36. Knudsen E.I., Konishi M. Mechanisms of sound localisation in the barn owl (Tyto alba). J Comp Physiol [A]. 133:1979;13-21.
37. Perez-Orive J., Mazor O., Turner G.C., Cassenaer S., Wilson R.I., Laurent G. Oscillations and sparsening of odor representations in the mushroom body. Science. 297:2002;359-365.
38. Moore B.C.J. Space perception. An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing. 1997;213-231 Academic Press, London.
39. Wyttenbach R.A., Hoy R.R. Acuity of directional hearing in the cricket. J Exp Biol. 200:1997;1999-2006.
40. Fry S.N., Bichsel M., Müller P., Robert D. Three-dimensional tracking of flying insects using pan-tilt cameras. J Neurosci Meth. 101:2000;59-67.
41. Müller P., Robert D. A shot in the dark: the silent quest of a free-flying phonotactic fly. J Exp Biol. 204:2001;1039-1052. The navigational strategy used by the fly Ormia ochracea to locate an acoustic target is investigated using infrared video tracking [40]. The fly localizes a sound source with great accuracy using only acoustic cues. Remarkably, auditory cues are shown to be sufficient, but not necessary at all times, for the behavior; accurate phonotactic orientation persists even after permanent stimulus interruption. Trajectory analysis points to the existence of a mechanism of acoustic navigation that is capable of gauging the direction and the distance of a sound source in three-dimensional space.
42. Poulet J.F., Hedwig B. A corollary discharge maintains auditory sensitivity during sound production. Nature. 418:2002;872-876. A series of insightful experiments unveils the neural mechanisms that help to preserve auditory sensitivity in crickets. Intracellular recordings of an identified auditory interneuron in a singing cricket reveal the presence of both presynaptic inhibition of primary afferents and postsynaptic inhibition of that interneuron. Both inhibitions occur in synchrony with the self-generated song and are demonstrated to be genuine corollary discharges that originate from the song generation network. This work contributes important knowledge pertaining to the often underestimated complexity of the peripheral neural stages of auditory processing.
43. Göpfert M.C., Robert D. Nanometre-range acoustic sensitivity in male and female mosquitoes. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B. 267:2001;453-457.
44. Clements A.N. Antennae and hearing. The Biology of Mosquitoes. 2:1999;55-91 CAB International, Oxford.
45. Manley G.A. Evidence for an active process and a cochlear amplifier in nonmammals. J Neurophysiol. 86:2001;541-549.
46. Göpfert M.C., Robert D. Active auditory mechanics in mosquitoes. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B. 268:2001;333-339. This study provides many pieces of evidence for active mechanical amplification in an insect's auditory system. Physically, this process shows a striking resemblance to the hair-cell-based amplification in the vertebrate cochlea. The origin of mechanical activity in the mosquito auditory system is attributed to the auditory mechanoreceptors, suggesting that these insect receptors - much like vertebrate hair cells - serve dual, transducing and actuating functions.
47. Yates G.K. Cochlear structure and function. Moore B.C.J. Hearing. 1995;41-74 Academic Press, San Diego.
48. Kössl M., Boyan G.S. Distortion-product otoacoustic emissions from the ear of a grasshopper. J Acoust Soc Am. 104:1998;326-335.
49. Coro F., Kössl M. Components of the 2f(1)-2f(2) distortion-product otoacoustic emission in a moth. Hear Res. 162:2001;126-133. Using acoustic methods, the authors show that the auditory system of moths behaves nonlinearly when stimulated with low-intensity sounds, possibly because of the action of an active mechanical process. This notion is supported by apparent analogies between the non-linear behavior of moth ears and the gerbil cochlea.
50. Göpfert M.C., Robert D. The mechanical basis of Drosophila audition. J Exp Biol. 205:2002;1199-1208. This paper describes the unconventional rotary mode of operation of the antennal sound receiver. The system acts as a moderately dampened simple harmonic oscillator that is surprisingly non-linear; its resonance frequency increases with stimulus intensity. This nonlinearity introduces a dynamic range compression that is relevant for acoustic communication at close-range; it enhances auditory sensitivity for low intensities, and reduces it for high intensities.
51. Göpfert M.C., Robert D. Turning the key on Drosophila audition. Nature. 411:2001;908.
52. Kernan M., Zuker C. Genetic approaches to mechanosensory transduction. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 5:1995;443-448.
53. Göpfert M.C., Stocker H., Robert D. atonal is required for exoskeletal joint formation in the Drosophila auditory system. Dev Dynam. 225:2002;106-109.
54. Manley G.A., Köppl C. Phylogenetic development of the cochlea and its innervation. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 8:1998;468-474.
55. Wit H.P., van Dijk P., Segenhout J.M. An electrical correlate of spontaneous otoacoustic emissions in a frog, a preliminary report. Wilson J.P., Kemp D.T. Cochlear Mechanisms: Structure, Functions and Models. 1989;341-347 Plenum Press, London.
56. Burns E.M., Strickland E.A., Tubis A., Jones K. Interactions among spontaneous otoacoustic emissions. I. Distortion products and linked emissions. Hear Res. 16:1984;271-278.