Signal recognition by frogs in the presence of temporally fluctuating chorus-shaped noise

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

Volumn 64, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 1695-1709

  Vélez, Alejandro ^a   Bee, Mark A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Auditory masking; Cocktail party problem; Gray treefrog; Hyla chrysoscelis; Masking release; Modulation masking

Indexed keywords

AGGREGATION BEHAVIOR; AUDITORY CUE; CONSPECIFIC; FEMALE; FROG; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; MATING BEHAVIOR; NOISE; PERCEPTION; RECOGNITION; SIGNAL; TEMPORAL VARIATION; THRESHOLD;

ANIMALIA; ANURA; HYLA; HYLA CHRYSOSCELIS; HYLA VERSICOLOR;

EID: 77956714987     PISSN: 03405443     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00265-010-0983-3     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Alder TB, Rose GJ (1998) Long-term temporal integration in the anuran auditory system. Nat Neurosci 1: 519-523.
2. Bacon SP, Grantham DW (1989) Modulation masking: effects of modulation frequency, depth, and phase. J Acoust Soc Am 85: 2575-2580.
3. Bacon SP, Grantham DW (1992) Fringe effects in modulation masking. J Acoust Soc Am 91: 3451-3455.
4. Bacon SP, Opie JM, Montoya DY (1998) The effects of hearing loss and noise masking on the masking release for speech in temporally complex backgrounds. J Speech Lang Hear Res 41: 549-563.
5. Beckers OM, Schul J (2004) Phonotaxis in Hyla versicolor (Anura, Hylidae): the effect of absolute call amplitude. J Comp Physiol A 190: 869-876.
6. Bee MA (2007a) Selective phonotaxis by male wood frogs (Rana sylvatica) to the sound of a chorus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61: 955-966.
7. Bee MA (2007b) Sound source segregation in grey treefrogs: spatial release from masking by the sound of a chorus. Anim Behav 74: 549-558.
8. Bee MA (2008a) Finding a mate at a cocktail party: spatial release from masking improves acoustic mate recognition in grey treefrogs. Anim Behav 75: 1781-1791.
9. Bee MA (2008b) Parallel female preferences for call duration in a diploid ancestor of an allotetraploid treefrog. Anim Behav 76: 845-853.
10. Bee MA, Micheyl C (2008) The cocktail party problem: what is it? How can it be solved? And why should animal behaviorists study it? J Comp Psychol 122: 235-251.
11. Bee MA, Schwartz JJ (2009) Behavioral measures of signal recognition thresholds in frogs in the presence and absence of chorus-shaped noise. J Acoust Soc Am 126: 2788-2801.
12. Bee MA, Swanson EM (2007) Auditory masking of anuran advertisement calls by road traffic noise. Anim Behav 74: 1765-1776.
13. Bronkhorst AW (2000) The cocktail party phenomenon: a review of research on speech intelligibility in multiple-talker conditions. Acustica 86: 117-128.
14. Bronkhorst AW, Plomp R (1992) Effect of multiple speech-like maskers on binaural speech recognition in normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 92: 3132-3139.
15. Brumm H, Slabbekoorn H (2005) Acoustic communication in noise. Adv Study Behav 35: 151-209.
16. Bush SL, Gerhardt HC, Schul J (2002) Pattern recognition and call preferences in treefrogs (Anura: Hylidae): a quantitative analysis using a no-choice paradigm. Anim Behav 63: 7-14.
17. Buus S (1985) Release from masking caused by envelope fluctuations. J Acoust Soc Am 78: 1958-1965.
18. Capranica RR, Moffat JM (1983) Neurobehavioral correlates of sound communication in anurans. In: Ewert JP, Capranica RR, Ingle DJ (eds) Advances in vertebrate neuroethology. Plenum, New York, pp 701-730.
19. Cherry EC (1953) Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. J Acoust Soc Am 25: 975-979.
20. Festen JM, Plomp R (1990) Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 88: 1725-1736.
21. Füllgrabe C, Berthommier F, Lorenzi C (2006) Masking release for consonant features in temporally fluctuating background noise. Hear Res 211: 74-84.
22. Gerhardt HC (1975) Sound pressure levels and radiation patterns of vocalizations of some North American frogs and toads. J Comp Physiol 102: 1-12.
23. Gerhardt HC (2001) Acoustic communication in two groups of closely related treefrogs. Adv Study Behav 30: 99-167.
24. Gerhardt HC, Huber F (2002) Acoustic communication in insects and anurans: common problems and diverse solutions. Chicago University Press, Chicago.
25. Gerhardt HC, Klump GM (1988a) Masking of acoustic signals by the chorus background noise in the green treefrog: a limitation on mate choice. Anim Behav 36: 1247-1249.
26. Gerhardt HC, Klump GM (1988b) Phonotactic responses and selectivity of barking treefrogs (Hyla gratiosa) to chorus sounds. J Comp Physiol A 163: 795-802.
27. Gerhardt HC, Schwartz JJ (2001) Auditory tuning, frequency preferences and mate choice in anurans. In: Ryan MJ (ed) Anuran communication. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC, pp 73-85.
28. Gerhardt HC, Tanner SD, Corrigan CM, Walton HC (2000) Female preference functions based on call duration in the gray tree frog (Hyla versicolor). Behav Ecol 11: 663-669.
29. Gustafsson HA, Arlinger SD (1994) Masking of speech by amplitude-modulated noise. J Acoust Soc Am 95: 518-529.
30. Hulse SH (2002) Auditory scene analysis in animal communication. Adv Study Behav 31: 163-200.
31. Klump GM, Dooling RJ, Fay RR, Stebbins WC (1995) Methods in comparative psychoacoustics. Birkhäuser, Basel.
32. Kwon BJ, Turner CW (2001) Consonant identification under maskers with sinusoidal modulation: masking release or modulation interference? J Acoust Soc Am 110: 1130-1140.
33. Langemann U, Klump GM (2005) Perception and acoustic communication networks. In: McGregor PK (ed) Animal communication networks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 451-480.
34. Marshall VT, Schwartz JJ, Gerhardt HC (2006) Effects of heterospecific call overlap on the phonotactic behaviour of grey treefrogs. Anim Behav 72: 449-459.
35. McDermott JH (2009) The cocktail party problem. Curr Biol 19: R1024-R1027.
36. Millman RE, Lorenzi C, Apoux F, Fullgrabe C, Green GGR, Bacon SP (2002) Effect of duration on amplitude-modulation masking. J Acoust Soc Am 111: 2551-2554.
37. Murphy CG, Gerhardt HC (2002) Mate sampling by female barking treefrogs (Hyla gratiosa). Behav Ecol 13: 472-480.
38. Narins PM, Zelick R (1988) The effects of noise on auditory processing and behavior in amphibians. In: Fritzsch B, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W, Hetherington TE, Walkowiak W (eds) The evolution of the amphibian auditory system. Wiley, New York, pp 511-536.
39. Nelken I, Rotman Y, Bar Yosef O (1999) Responses of auditory-cortex neurons to structural features of natural sounds. Nature 397: 154-157.
40. Nelson PB, Jin SH, Carney AE, Nelson DA (2003) Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 113: 961-968.
41. Noble W, Perrett S (2002) Hearing speech against spatially separate competing speech versus competing noise. Percept Psychophys 64: 1325-1336.
42. ® Video Tracking System for automation of behavioral experiments: reference manual version 3. 1. Noldus Information Technology, Wageningen.
43. Rheinlaender J, Klump GM (1988) Behavioral aspects of sound localization. In: Fritzsch B, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W, Hetherington T (eds) The evolution of the amphibian auditory system. Wiley, New York, pp 297-305.
44. Richards DG, Wiley RH (1980) Reverberations and amplitude fluctuations in the propagation of sound in a forest: implications for animal communication. Am Nat 115: 381-399.
45. Ronacher B, Hoffmann C (2003) Influence of amplitude modulated noise on the recognition of communication signals in the grasshopper Chorthippus biguttulus. J Comp Physiol A 189: 419-425.
46. Ronacher B, Krahe R (1998) Song recognition in the grasshopper Chorthippus biguttulus is not impaired by shortening song signals: implications for neuronal encoding. J Comp Physiol A Sens Neural behav Physio 183: 729-735.
47. Schul J, Bush SL (2002) Non-parallel coevolution of sender and receiver in the acoustic communication system of treefrogs. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 269: 1847-1852.
48. Schwartz JJ (1987) The function of call alternation in anuran amphibians: a test of three hypotheses. Evolution 41: 461-471.
49. Schwartz JJ, Buchanan BW, Gerhardt HC (2001) Female mate choice in the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor) in three experimental environments. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49: 443-455.
50. Schwartz JJ, Freeberg TM (2008) Acoustic interaction in animal groups: signaling in noisy and social contexts-introduction. J Comp Psychol 122: 231-234.
51. Schwartz JJ, Gerhardt HC (1995) Directionality of the auditory system and call pattern recognition during acoustic interference in the gray treefrog, Hyla versicolor. Audit Neurosci 1: 195-206.
52. Schwartz JJ, Marshall VT (2006) Forms of call overlap and their impact on advertisement call attractiveness to females of the gray treefrog, Hyla versicolor. Bioacoustics 16: 39-56.
53. Shinn-Cunningham BG, Schickler J, Kopco N, Litovsky R (2001) Spatial unmasking of nearby speech sources in a simulated anechoic environment. J Acoust Soc Am 110: 1118-1129.
54. Swanson EM, Tekmen SM, Bee MA (2007) Do female anurans exploit inadvertent social information to locate breeding aggregations? Can J Zool 85: 921-932.
55. Takahashi GA, Bacon SP (1992) Modulation detection, modulation masking, and speech understanding in noise in the elderly. J Speech Hear Res 35: 1410-1421.
56. Welch AM, Semlitsch RD, Gerhardt HC (1998) Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray treefrogs. Science 280: 1928-1930.
57. Wells KD (2007) The ecology and behavior of amphibians. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
58. Wiley RH (1994) Errors, exaggeration, and deception in animal communication. In: Real LA (ed) Behavioural mechanisms in evolutionary ecology. Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp 157-189.
59. Wiley RH (2006) Signal detection and animal communication. Adv Study Behav 36: 217-247.
60. 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.
61. Wollerman L (1999) Acoustic interference limits call detection in a Neotropical frog Hyla ebraccata. Anim Behav 57: 529-536.
62. Wollerman L, Wiley RH (2002) Background noise from a natural chorus alters female discrimination of male calls in a Neotropical frog. Anim Behav 63: 15-22.
63. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis, 4th edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River.