Auditory response characteristics of the piebald odorous frog and their implications

Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology

Volumn 192, Issue 8, 2006, Pages 801-806

  Yu, Zu Lin ^a,b   Qiu, Qiang ^a,b   Xu, Zhi Min ^a   Shen, Jun Xian ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF BIOPHYSICS   (China)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES   (China)

Author keywords

Amphibian; Frog; Hearing; Noise; Odorrana schmackeri

Indexed keywords

ACTION POTENTIAL; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; BRAIN STEM; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CYTOLOGY; DRUG EFFECT; EVOKED AUDITORY RESPONSE; FROG; HEARING; NOISE; PHYSIOLOGY; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIATION RESPONSE; REACTION TIME; VOCALIZATION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ACTION POTENTIALS; ANIMALS; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; BRAIN STEM; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, RADIATION; EVOKED POTENTIALS, AUDITORY; HEARING; NOISE; RANIDAE; REACTION TIME; VOCALIZATION, ANIMAL;

EID: 33746398464     PISSN: 03407594     EISSN: 14321351     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00359-006-0125-6     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (1998) Principles of animal communication. S Sinauer Associates, Sunderland
2. Brumm H (2004) The impact of environmental noise on song amplitude in a territorial bird. J Anim Ecol 73:434-440
3. Brumm H, Todt D (2002) Nnoise-dependent song amplitude regulation in a territorial songbird. Anim Behav 63:891-897
4. Brumm H, Voss K, Köllmer I, Todt D (2004) Acoustic communication in noise: regulation of call characteristics in a New World monkey. J Exp Biol 207:443-448
5. Fei L (1999) Atlas of amphibians of China. Henan Science and Technical Publisher, Zhengzhou
6. Feng AS, Narins PM, Xu CH, Lin WY, Yu ZL, Qiu Q, Xu ZM, Shen JX (2006) Ultrasonic communication in frogs. Nature 440:333-336. DOI:10.1038/nature04416
7. Frishkopf LS, Geisler CD (1966) Peripheral origin of auditory response recorded from the eighth nerve of the bullfrog. J Acoust Soc Am 40:469-472
8. Gerhardt HC, Huber F (2002) Acoustic communication in insects and anurans. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
9. Hödl W, Amézquita A (2001) Visual signaling in anuran amphibians. In: Ryan MJ (eds) Anuran communication. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC, pp 121-141
10. Kime NM, Turner WR, Ryan MJ (2000) The transmission of advertisement call in Central American frogs. Behav Ecol 11:71-83
11. Lewis ER, Narins PM (1999) The acoustic periphery of amphibians: anatomy and physiology. In: Fay RR, Popper AN (eds) Comparative hearing: fish and amphibians. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 101-154
12. Loftus-Hills JJ (1973) Comparative aspects of auditory function in Australian anurans. Aust J Zool 21:353-367
13. Loftus-Hills JJ, Johnstone BM (1970) Auditory function, communication, and the brain-evoked response in anuran amphibians. J Acoust Soc Am 47:1131-1138
14. Narins PM (1982) Effects of masking noise on evoked calling in the Puerto Rican Coqui (Anura: Leptodactylidae). J Comp Physiol A 147:438-446
15. Narins PM, Benedix JH Jr, Moss F (1997) Does stochastic resonance play a role in hearing? In: Lewis ER, Lyon R, Long GR, Narins PM (eds) Diversity in Auditory Mechanics, World Scientific Publishers, Singapore, pp 83-90
16. Narins PM, Feng AS, Lin WY, Schnitzler HU, Denzinger A, Suthers RA, Xu CH (2004) Old World frog and bird vocalizations contain prominent ultrasonic harmonics. J Acoust Soc Am 115:910-913
17. Penna M, Solis R (1998) Frog call intensities and sound propagation in the South American temperate forest region. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 42:371-381
18. Penna M, Pottstock H, Velásquez N (2005) Effect of natural and synthetic noise on evoked vocal responses in a frog of the temperate austral forest. Anim Behav 70:639-651
19. Penna M, Márquez R, Bosch J, Crespo EG (2006) Non-optimal propagation of advertisement calls of midwife toads in Iberian habitats. J Acoust Soc Am 119:1227-1237
20. Pettigrew A, Chung SH, Anson M (1978) Neurophysiological basis of directional hearing in amphibia. Nature 272:138-142
21. Rabin LA, McCowan B, Hooper SL, Owings DH (2003) Anthropogenic noise and its effect on animal communication: an interface between comparative psychology and conservation biology. Int J Comp Psychol 16:172-192
22. Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W (1988) Coevolution of sender and receiver: effect on local mate preference in cricket frogs. Science 240:1786-1788
23. Ryan MJ, Cocroft RB, Wilczynski W (1990) The role of environmental selection in intraspecific divergence of mate recognition signals in the cricket frog, Acris crepitans. Evolution 44:1869-1872
24. Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W (1991) Evolution of intraspecific variation in the advertisement call of a cricket frog (Acris crepitans, Hylidae). Biol J Linn Soc 44:249-271
25. Slabbekoorn H, Peet M (2003) Birds sing at a higher pitch in urban noise. Nature 424:267
26. Smotherman MS, Narins PM (2003) Hair cells, hearing and hopping: a field guide to hair cell physiology in the frogs. J Exp Biol 203:2237-2246
27. Sun JWC, Narins PM (2005) Anthropogenic sounds differentially affect amphibian call rate. Biol Conserv 121:419-427
28. Wilczynski W, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (2001) Evolution of calls and auditory tuning in the Physalaemus pustulosus species group. Brain Behav Evol 58:137-51
29. Wiley RH, Richards DG (1978) Physical constraints on acoustic communication in the atmosphere: implications for the evolution of animal vocalizations. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 3:69-94
30. Wysocki LE, Ladich F (2005) Hearing in Fishes under Noise Conditions. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 6:28-36
31. Witte K, Farris HE, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W (2005) How cricket frog females deal with a noisy world: habitat-related differences in auditory tuning. Behav Ecol 10:571-578
32. Ye CY, Fei L (2001) Phylogeny of genus Odorrana (Amphibia: Ranidae) in China. Acta Zool Sin 47:528-534
33. Zakon HH, Wilczynski W (1988) The physiology of the Anuran VIIIth nerve. In: Fritzsch B, Wolkowiak W, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W, Hetherington T (eds) The Amphibian Auditory System, Wiley, New York, pp 125-155