Ultrasonic frogs show extraordinary sex differences in auditory frequency sensitivity

Nature Communications

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2011, Pages

  Shen, Jun Xian ^a   Xu, Zhi Min ^a   Yu, Zu Lin ^a   Wang, Shuai ^b   Zheng, De Zhi ^b   Fan, Shang Chun ^b  

^a INSTITUTE OF BIOPHYSICS   (China)

^b BEIHANG UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ANIMAL COMMUNICATION; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; BEST EXCITATORY FREQUENCY; CONTROLLED STUDY; EARDRUM; EVOKED AUDITORY RESPONSE; EVOKED RESPONSE; EVOKED VOCAL RESPONSE; FEMALE; FREQUENCY DISCRIMINATION; FROG; HEARING ACUITY; MALE; MESENCEPHALON; NONHUMAN; ODORRANA TORMOTA; SEX DIFFERENCE; TORUS SEMICIRCULARIS; VOCALIZATION; ANIMAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY; EVOLUTION; HEARING; HISTOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT; ULTRASOUND;

ANURA; ODORRANA;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ANIMAL COMMUNICATION; ANIMALS; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY; FEMALE; HEARING; MALE; MESENCEPHALON; RANIDAE; SEX CHARACTERISTICS; TYMPANIC MEMBRANE; ULTRASONICS;

EID: 79959235324     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20411723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ncomms1339     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Feng, A. S. et al. Ultrasonic communication in frogs. Nature 440, 333-336 (2006).
2. Shen, J. X. et al. Ultrasonic frogs show hyperacute phonotaxis to the female's courtship calls. Nature 453, 914-916 (2008).
3. Narins, P. M. et al. Old World frog and bird vocalizations contain prominent ultrasonic harmonics. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115, 910-913 (2004). (Pubitemid 38200677)
4. Feng, A. S. et al. Diversity of the vocal signals of concave-eared torrent frogs (Odorrana tormota): evidence for individual signatures. Ethology 115, 1015-1028 (2009).
5. Shen, J. X. A method for quantifying phonotaxis in the concave-eared torrent frog. Nat. Protocols doi: 10.1038/nprot.2008.90 (2008).
6. Narins, P. M. & Capranica, R. R. Sexual differences in the auditory system of the treefrog Eleutherodactylus coqui. Science 192, 378-380 (1976).
7. Keddy-Hector, A. C., Wilczynski, W. & Ryan, M. J. Call patterns and basilar papilla tuning in cricket frogs. II. Intrapopulational variation and allometry. Brain Behav. Evol. 39, 238-246 (1992).
8. McClelland, B. E., Wilczynski, W. & Rand, A. S. Sexual dimorphism and species differences in the neurophysiology and morphology of the acoustic communication system of two neotropical hylids. J. Comp. Physiol. A 180, 451-462 (1997). (Pubitemid 27195461)
9. Gridi-Papp, M. et al. Active control of ultrasonic hearing in frogs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 11013-11018 (2008).
10. Capranica, R. R. & Moffat, A. J. M. in Advances in Vertebrate Neuroethology (eds. Ewert, J. P., Capranica, R. R. & Ingle, D. J.), 701-730 (Plenum, 1983).
11. Gerhardt, H. C. & Schwartz, J. J. in Anuran Communication (ed. Ryan, M. J.), 73-85 (Smithsonian Institution, 2001).
12. Chung, S. H., Pettigrew, A. & Anson, M. Dynamics of the amphibian middle ear. Nature 272, 138-142 (1978).
13. Hemilä, S., Nummela, S. & Reuter, T. What middle ear parameters tell about impedance matching and high frequency hearing. Hear. Res. 85, 31-44 (1995).
14. Hetherington, T. E. Sexual differences in the tympanic frequency responses of the American bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 96, 1186-1188 (1994). (Pubitemid 24258404)
15. Mason, M. J., Lin, C. C. & Narins, P. M. Sex differences in the middle ear of the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana). Brain Behav. Evol. 61, 91-101 (2003). (Pubitemid 36359519)
16. Miranda, J. A. & Wilczynski, W. Sex differences and androgen influences on midbrain auditory thresholds in the green treefrog, Hyla cinerea. Hearing Res. 252, 79-88 (2009).
17. Ruggero, M. A. & Temchin, A. N. The roles of external, middle, and inner ears in determining the bandwidth of hearing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 13206-13210 (2002).