Operant methods for mouse psychoacoustics

Behavior Research Methods

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 1-7

  Klink, Karin B ^a   Bendig, Garnet ^a   Klump, Georg M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OLDENBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEARING; INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING; MALE; MOUSE; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PERCEPTIVE THRESHOLD; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMETRY; PSYCHOPHYSICS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ANIMALS; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; CONDITIONING, OPERANT; FEMALE; MALE; MICE; PSYCHOACOUSTICS; PSYCHOMETRICS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SENSORY THRESHOLDS; SIGNAL DETECTION (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 33746695530     PISSN: 1554351X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03192744     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. BERLIN, C. I. (1963). Hearing in mice via GSR audiometry. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 13, 359-368.
2. BIRCH, L. M., WARFIELD, D., RUBEN, R. J., & MIKAELIAN, D. O. (1968). Behavioral measurements of pure tone thresholds in normal CBA-J mice. Journal of Auditory Research, 8, 459-468.
3. DAI, H. (1995). On measuring psychometric functions: A comparison of the constant-stimulus and adaptive up-down methods. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 98, 3135-3145.
4. DOOLING, R. J., & OKANOYA, K. (1995). The method of constant stimuli in testing auditory sensitivity in small birds. In G. M. Klump, R. J. Dooling, R. R. Fay, & W. C. Stebbins (Eds.), Methods in comparative psychoacoustics (pp. 161-169). Basel: Birkhäuser.
5. EHRET, G. (1976). Critical bands and filter characteristics in the ear of the housemouse (Mas musculus). Biological Cybernetics, 24, 35-42.
6. GREEN, D. M. (1995). Maximum-likelihood procedures and the inattentive observer. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 3749-3760.
7. GREEN, D. M., & SWETS, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.
8. HEFFNER, H. E., & HEFFNER, R. S. (2001). Behavioral assessment of hearing in mice. In J. F. Willott (Ed.), Handbook of mouse auditory research (pp. 19-29). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
9. HEFFNER, H. [E.], & MASTERTON, B. (1980). Hearing in glires: Domestic rabbit, cotton rat, feral house mouse, and kangaroo rat. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 68, 1584-1599.
10. ISON, J. R., & AGRAWAL, P. (1998). The effect of spatial separation of signal and noise on masking in the free field as a function of signal frequency and age in the mouse. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104, 1689-1695.
11. KLINK, K. B., & KLUMP, G. M. (2004). Duration discrimination in the mouse (Mus musculus). Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 190, 1039-1046.
12. LEEK, M. R. (2001). Adaptive procedures in psychophysical research. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 1279-1292.
13. LEEK, M. R., HANNA, T. E., & MARSHALL, L. (1991). An interleaved tracking procedure to monitor unstable psychometric functions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 90, 1385-1397.
14. LEEK, M. R., HANNA, T. E., & MARSHALL, L. (1992). Estimation of psychometric functions from adaptive tracking procedures. Perception & Psychophysics, 51, 247-256.
15. LEVITT, H. (1971). Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 49, 467-477.
16. MARKL, H., & EHRET, G. (1973). Die Hōrschwelle der Maus (Mus musculus): Eine kritische Wertung der Methoden zur Bestimmung der Hörschwelle eines Säugetiers. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 33, 274-286.
17. MAY, B. J., HUANG, A. Y., ALESZCZYK, C. M., & HIENZ, R. D. (1995). Design and conduct of sensory experiments for domestic cats. In G. M. Klump, R. J. Dooling, R. R. Fay, & W. C. Stebbins (Eds.), Methods in comparative psychoacoustics (pp. 95-108). Basel: Birkhäuser.
18. MIKAELIAN, D. O., WARFIELD, D., & NORMS, O. (1974). Genetic progressive hearing loss in the C57/bl6 mouse. Acta Otolaryngologica, 77, 327-334.
19. NIEMIEC, A. J., & MOODY, D. B. (1995). Constant stimulus and tracking procedures for measuring sensitivity. In G. M. Klump, R. J. Dooling, R. R. Fay, & W. C. Stebbins (Eds.), Methods in comparative psychoacoustics (pp. 65-77). Basel: Birkhäuser.
20. PROSEN, C. A., BATH, K. G., VETTER, D. E., & MAY, B. J. (2000). Behavioral assessments of auditory sensitivity in transgenic mice. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 97, 59-67.
21. PROSEN, C. A., DORE, D. J., & MAY, B. J. (2003). The functional age of hearing loss in a mouse model of presbycusis: I. Behavioral assessments. Hearing Research, 183, 44-56.
22. SCHLEIDT, W.M. (1952). Reaktionen auf Töne hoher Frequenz bei Nagern. Naturwissenschaften, 39, 69-70.
23. WATERSTON, R. H., LINDBLAD-TOH, K., BIRNEY, E., ROGERS, J., ABRIL, J. F., AGARWAL, P., ET AL. (2002). Initial sequencing and comparative analysis of the mouse genome. Nature, 420, 520-562.
24. WATSON, A. B., & FITZHUGH, A. (1990). The method of constant stimuli is inefficient Perception & Psychophysics, 47, 87-91.
25. WEIK, V.-N. (2004). Untersuchungen zu Maskierungseffekten innerhalb und zwischen auditorischen Filtern bei der Hausmaus (Mus musculus). Unpublished diploma thesis, Oldenburg University, Oldenburg, Germany.
26. WILLOTT, J. F., TANNER, L., O'STEEN, J., JOHNSON, K. R., BOGUE, M. A., & GAGNON, L. (2003). Acoustic startle and prepulse inhibition in 40 inbred strains of mice. Behavioral Neuroscience, 117, 716-727.
27. YOUNG, J. S., & FECHTER, L. D. (1983). Reflex inhibition procedures for animal audiometry: A technique for assessing ototoxicity. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 73, 1686-1693.
28. ZHENG, Q. Y., JOHNSON, K. R., & ERWAY, L. C. (1999). Assessment of hearing in 80 inbred strains of mice by ABR threshold analyses. Hearing Research, 130, 94-107.