A precedence effect underlies preferences for calls with leading pulses in the grey treefrog, Hyla versicolor

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 80, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 139-145

  Marshall, Vincent T ^a   Gerhardt, H Carl ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

Acoustic communication; Precedence effect; Signal timing

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY; BIOACOUSTICS; CALLING BEHAVIOR; CONSPECIFIC; FROG; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; SIGNALING;

ANIMALIA; HYLA; HYLA VERSICOLOR;

EID: 77953957710     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.04.014     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Bee M.A., Riemersma K.K. Does common spatial origin promote the auditory grouping of temporally separated signal elements in grey treefrogs?. Animal Behaviour 2008, 76:831-843.
2. Blauert J. Localization and the law of the first wavefront in the median plane. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1971, 50:466-470.
3. Bush S.L., Gerhardt H.C., Schul J. Pattern recognition and call preferences in treefrogs (Anura: Hylidae): a quantitative analysis using a no-choice paradigm. Animal Behaviour 2001, 63:7-14.
4. Cranford J.L. Localization of paired sound sources in cats: effects of variable arrival times. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1982, 72:1309-1311.
5. Dent M.L., Dooling R.J. The precedence effect in three species of birds (Melopsittacus undulatus, Serinus canaria, and Taeniopygia guttata). Journal of Comparative Psychology 2004, 118:325-331.
6. Diekamp B.M., Gerhardt H.C. Behavioral and neurophysiological studies of acoustic communication in the gray treefrog Hyla versicolor. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 1995, 177:173-190.
7. Farris H.E., Rand A.S., Ryan M.J. The effects of spatially separated call components on phonotaxis in túngara frogs: evidence for auditory grouping. Brain, Behavior and Evolution 2002, 60:181-188.
8. Farris H.E., Rand A.S., Ryan M.J. The effects of time, space and spectrum on auditory grouping in túngara frogs. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 2005, 191:1173-1183.
9. Feng A.S., Schul J. Sound processing in real-world environments. Hearing and Sound Communication in Amphibians 2007, 323-350. Springer, New York. P.M. Narins, A.S. Feng, R.R. Fay, A.N. Popper (Eds.).
10. Gerhardt H.C., Klump G.M. Masking of acoustic signals by the chorus background noise in the green treefrog: a limitation on mate choice. Animal Behaviour 1988, 36:1247-1249.
11. Gerhardt H.C., Schul J. A quantitative analysis of behavioural selectivity for pulse-rise time in the gray treefrog, Hyla versicolor. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 1999, 185:33-40.
12. Grafe T.U. The function of call alternation in the Africa reed frog, Hyperolius marmoratus: precise call timing prevents auditory masking. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1996, 38:149-158.
13. Grafe T.U. A function of synchronous chorusing and a novel female preference shift in an anuran. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 1999, 266:2331-2336.
14. Grafe T.U. Anuran choruses as communication networks. Communication Networks 2005, 277-299. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. P.K. McGregor (Ed.).
15. Greenfield M.D. Inhibition of male calling by heterospecific signals: artifact of chorusing or abstinence during suppression of female phonotaxis?. Naturwissenschaften 1993, 80:570-573.
16. Greenfield M.D. Mechanisms and evolution of communal sexual displays in arthropods and anurans. Advances in the Study of Behavior 2005, 35:1-62.
17. Greenfield M.D., Roizen I. Katydid synchronous chorusing is an evolutionarily stable outcome of female choice. Nature 1993, 364:618-620.
18. Klump G.M., Gerhardt H.C. Mechanisms and function of call-timing in male-male interactions in frogs. Playback and Studies of Animal Communication 1992, 153-174. Plenum, New York. P.K. McGregor (Ed.).
19. Lee N., Elias D.O., Mason A.C. A precedence effect resolves phantom sound source illusions in the parasitoid fly Ormia ochracea. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 2009, 106:6357-6362.
20. Litovsky R.Y., Shinn-Cunningham B.G. Investigation of the relationship among three common measures of precedence: fusion, localization dominance, and discrimination suppression. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2001, 109:346-358.
21. Litovsky R.Y., Colburn H.S., Yost W.A., Guzman S.J. The precedence effect. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1999, 106:1633-1654.
22. Marshall V.T., Schwartz J.J., Gerhardt H.C. The effects of heterospecific call overlap on the phonotactic behaviour of grey treefrogs. Animal Behaviour 2006, 72:449-459.
23. Martínez-Rivera C.S., Gerhardt H.C. Advertisement-call modification, male competition, and female preferences in the bird-voiced treefrog Hyla avivoca. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2008, 63:195-208.
24. Mason M.J. Pathways for sound transmission to the inner ear in amphibians. Hearing and Sound Communication in Amphibians 2007, 147-183. Springer, New York. P.M. Narins, A.S. Feng, R.R. Fay, A.N. Popper (Eds.).
25. Moore B.C.J. An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing 2004, Elsevier Academic Press, London. 5th edn.
26. Páez V.P., Bock B.C., Rand A.S. Inhibition of evoked calling of Dendrobates pumilio due to acoustic interference from cicada calling. Biotropica 1993, 25:242-245.
27. Richardson C., Lena J.P., Joly P., Lengagne T. Are leaders good mates? A study of call timing and male quality in a chorus situation. Animal Behaviour 2008, 76:1487-1495.
28. Römer H., Hedwig B., Ott S.R. Contralateral inhibition as a sensory bias: the neural basis for a female preference in a synchronously calling bushcricket, Mecopoda elongate. European Journal of Neuroscience 2002, 15:1655-1662.
29. Schul J., Bush S.L. Non-parallel coevolution of sender and receiver in the acoustic communication system of treefrogs. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2002, 269:847-852.
30. Schwartz J.J. The function of call alternation in anuran amphibians: a test of three hypotheses. Evolution 1987, 41:461-471.
31. Schwartz J.J. Male calling behaviour, female discrimination and acoustic interference in the Neotropical treefrog Hyla microcephala under realistic acoustic conditions. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1993, 32:401-414.
32. Schwartz J.J. Call monitoring and interactive playback systems in the study of acoustic interactions among male anurans. Anuran Communication 2001, 183-204. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. M.J. Ryan (Ed.).
33. Schwartz J.J., Marshall V.T. Forms of call overlap and their impact on advertisement call attractiveness to females of the gray treefrog, Hyla versicolor. Bioacoustics 2006, 16:39-56.
34. Schwartz J.J., Wells K.D. An experimental study of acoustic interference between two species of neotropical treefrogs. Animal Behaviour 1983, 31:181-190.
35. Wilczynski W., Endepols H. Central auditory pathways in anuran amphibians: the anatomical basis of hearing and sound. Hearing and Sound Communication in Amphibians 2007, 221-249. Springer, New York. P.M. Narins, A.S. Feng, R.R. Fay, A.N. Popper (Eds.).
36. Wollerman L. Acoustic interference limits call detection in a Neotropical frog Hyla ebraccata. Animal Behaviour 1999, 57:529-536.
37. Wyttenbach R.A., Hoy R.R. Demonstration of the precedence effect in an insect. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1993, 94:777-784.
38. Zar J.H. Biostatistical Analysis 1999, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. 4th edn.
39. Zurek P.M. The precedence effect. Directional Hearing 1987, 85-105. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. W.A. Yost, G. Gourevitch (Eds.).