Relative comparisons of call parameters enable auditory grouping in frogs

Nature Communications

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2011, Pages

  Farris, Hamilton E ^a   Ryan, Michael J ^b,c  

^a LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^c SMITHSONIAN TROPICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Panama)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTICS; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; AUDITORY SYSTEM; COGNITION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FROG; HUMAN; MALE; NONHUMAN; PARAMETER; PERCEPTION; SOUND; SPECIES; ANIMAL; CLASSIFICATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; PHYSIOLOGY; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; VOCALIZATION;

ANURA; PHYSALAEMUS PUSTULOSUS;

ANIMALS; FEMALE; MALE; RANIDAE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; SPECIES SPECIFICITY; VOCALIZATION, ANIMAL;

EID: 79961192080     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20411723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ncomms1417     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Shamma, S. A. & Micheyl, C. Behind the scenes of auditory perception. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol 20, 361-366 (2010).
2. Mellinger, D. K. & Mont-Reynaud, B. M. in Auditory Computation (eds. Popper, A. N. & Fay, R. R.) 271-331 (Springer, 1996).
3. Carlyon, R. P. How the brain separates sounds. Trends Cogn. Sci. 8, 465-471 (2004). (Pubitemid 39265450)
4. Yost, W. A. & Sheft, S. in Human Psychophysics (eds. Yost, W. A., Popper, A. N., & Fay, R. R.) 193-236 (Springer Verlag, 1993).
5. Darwin, C. J. Listening to speech in the presence of other sounds. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond B Biol. Sci. 363, 1011-1021 (2008). (Pubitemid 351158930)
6. Ciocca, V. The auditory organization of complex sounds. Front. Biosci. 13, 148-169 (2008). (Pubitemid 351606126)
7. Bregman, A. S. Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organization of Sound (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990).
8. Bradbury, J. W., & Vehrencamp, S. L. Principles of Animal Communication (Sinauer Assoc. Inc., Sunderland, MA, 1998).
9. Darwin, C. J. & Carlyon, R. P. in Hearing (ed. Moore, B. C.) 387-424 (Academic Press, 1995).
10. Grimault, N. et al. Perceptual auditory stream segregation of sequences of complex sounds in subjects with normal and impaired hearing. Br. J. Audiol. 35, 173-182 (2001). (Pubitemid 32777659)
11. Moore, B. C. J. & Gockel, H. Factors influencing sequential stream segregation. Acta Acust. United Ac 88, 320-333 (2002). (Pubitemid 34732115)
12. Roberts, B., Glasberg, B. R. & Moore, B. C. Primitive stream segregation of tone sequences without differences in fundamental frequency or passband. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 112, 2074-2085 (2002). (Pubitemid 35222474)
13. Grimault, N., Bacon, S. P. & Micheyl, C. Auditory stream segregation on the basis of amplitude-modulation rate. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 111, 1340-1348 (2002). (Pubitemid 34214074)
14. McCabe, S. L. & Denham, M. J. A model of auditory streaming. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101, 1611-1621 (1997). (Pubitemid 27114265)
15. O'Connor, K. N. & Sutter, M. L. Global spectral and location effects in auditory perceptual grouping. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 12, 342-354 (2000). (Pubitemid 30229564)
16. Bregman, A. S. & Rudnicky, A. I. Auditory segregation: Stream or streams? J Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 1, 263-267 (1975).
17. Ciocca, V. & Bregman, A. S. Perceived continuity of gliding and steady-state tones through interrupting noise. Percept. Psychophys. 42, 476-484 (1987).
18. Darwin, C. J. Simultaneous grouping and auditory continuity. Percept. Psychophys. 67, 1384-1390 (2005). (Pubitemid 43555081)
19. Darwin, C. J. Perceiving vowels in the presence of another sound: Constraints on formant perception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 76, 1636-1647 (1984). (Pubitemid 15152010)
20. Bee, M. A. & Micheyl, C. 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 (2008).
21. Feng, A. S. & Ratnam, R. Neural basis of hearing in real-world situations. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 51, 699-725 (2000).
22. Fay, R. R. in Auditory Perception of Sound Sources (eds Yost, W. A., Popper, A. N., & Fay, R.R.) 307-323 (Springer, 2008).
23. Cherry, E. C. Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and two ears. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 25, 975-979 (1953).
24. Gerhardt, H. C., & Huber, F. Acoustic communication in insects and anurans (University of Chicago, Chicago, 2002).
25. Gerhardt, H. C. & Klump, G. M. Masking of acoustic-signals by the chorus background-noise in the green tree frog - A Limitation on Mate Choice. Anim. Behav. 36, 1247-1249 (1988).
26. Wollerman, L. & Wiley, R. H. Background noise from a natural chorus alters female discrimination of male calls in a neotropical frog. Anim. Behav. 63, 15-22 (2002).
27. Bee, M. A. Sound source segregation in grey treefrogs: Spatial release from masking by the sound of a chorus. Anim. Behav. 74, 549-558 (2007). (Pubitemid 47404502)
28. Bee, M. A. Finding a mate at a cocktail party: Spatial release from masking improves acoustic mate recognition in grey treefrogs. Anim. Behav. 75, 1781-1791 (2008).
29. Ryan, M. J. & Drewes, R. C. Vocal morphology of the Physalaemus-pustulosus species group (Leptodactylidae) - morphological response to sexual selection for complex calls. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 40, 37-52 (1990).
30. 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 Behav. Evol. 60, 181-188 (2002). (Pubitemid 36158568)
31. Farris, H. E., Rand, A. S. & Ryan, M. J. The effects of time, space and spectrum on auditory grouping in túngara frogs. J. Comp. Physiol A 191, 1173-1183 (2005).
32. Buell, T. N. & Hafter, E. R. Combination of binaural information across frequency bands. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 90, 1894-1900 (1991).
33. Cherry, E. C. & Weary, D. M. Some further experiments upon the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 26, 554-559 (1954).
34. Mills, A. W. On the minimum audible angle. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 30, 237-246 (1958).
35. Barsz, K. Auditory pattern perception: The effect of tone location on the discrimination of tonal sequences. Percept. Psychophys. 50, 290-296 (1991).
36. Best, V. et al. The influence of spatial separation on divided listening. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120, 1506-1516 (2006). (Pubitemid 44370670)
37. Darwin, C. J. & Hukin, R. W. Auditory objects of attention: The role of interaural time differences. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 25, 617-629 (1999).
38. Deutsch, D. Binaural integration of melodic patterns. Percept. Psychophys. 25, 399-405 (1979). (Pubitemid 10217177)
39. Gockel, H. & Carlyon, R. P. Effects of ear of entry and perceived location of synchronous and asynchronous components on mistuning detection. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104, 3534-3545 (1998). (Pubitemid 29006016)
40. Jorgensen, M. B. & Gerhardt, H. C. Directional hearing in the gray tree frog Hyla versicolor: Eardrum vibrations and phonotaxis. J. Comp. Physiol. A 169, 177-183 (1991).
41. Lin, W. Y. & Feng, A. S. Free-field unmasking response characteristics of frog auditory nerve fibers: Comparison with the responses of midbrain auditory neurons. J. Comp. Physiol. A 187, 699-712 (2001). (Pubitemid 34025598)
42. Schwartz, J. J. & Gerhardt, H. C. Spatially mediated release from auditory masking in an anuran amphibian. J. Comp. Physiol. A 166, 37-41 (1989). (Pubitemid 20024405)
43. Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. in Sound Source Localization (eds. Popper, A. N. & Fay, R. R.) 67-123 (Springer, 2005).
44. Schwartz, J. J. & Gerhardt, H. C. Directionality of the auditory system and call pattern recognition during acoustic interference in the gray tree frog, Hyla versicolor. Audit. Neurosci. 1, 195-206 (1995).
45. Bee, M. A. & Riemersma, K. K. Does common spatial origin promote the auditory grouping of temporally separated signal elements in grey treefrogs? Anim. Behav. 76, 831-843 (2008).
46. Bee, M. A. Spectral preferences and the role of spatial coherence in simultaneous integration in gray treefrogs (Hyla chrysoscelis). J. Comp. Psychol 124, 412-424 (2010).
47. Darwin, C. J. in Auditory perception of sound sources, (eds. Yost, W. A. Popper, A. N. and Fay, R. R.) 215-232 (Springer, 2008).
48. Ryan, M. J. & Rand, A. S. Phylogenetic influence on mating call preferences in female túngara frogs, Physalaemus pustulosus. Anim. Behav. 57, 945-956 (1999). (Pubitemid 29186619)
49. Ryan, M. J. & Rand, A. S. Species recognition and sexual selection as a unitary problem in animal communication. Evolution 47, 647-657 (1993).
50. Akre, K. L. & Ryan, M. J. Complexity increases working memory for mating signals. Curr. Biol. 20, 502-505 (2010).
51. Wilczynski, W., Rand, S. A. & Ryan, M. J. Female preferences for temporal order of call components in the túngara frog: A Bayesian analysis. Anim. Behav. 58, 841-851 (1999).
52. Pauly, G. B. et al. The vocal sac increases call rate in the túngara frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 79, 708-719 (2006). (Pubitemid 44106896)
53. Hobel, G. Interaction between signal timing and signal feature preferences: Causes and implications for sexual selection. Anim. Behav. 79, 1257-1266 (2010).
54. Marshall, V. T. & Gerhardt, H. C. A precedence effect underlies preferences for calls with leading pulses in the grey treefrog, Hyla versicolor. Anim. Behav. 80, 139-145 (2010).
55. Greenfield, M. D. & Snedden, W. A. Selective attention and the spatio-temporal structure of orthopteran choruses. Behaviour 140, 1-26 (2003). (Pubitemid 36567937)
56. Greenfield, M. D. & Rand, A. S. Frogs have rules: Selective attention algorithms regulate chorusing in Physalaemus pustulosus (Leptodactylidae). Ethology 106, 331-347 (2000). (Pubitemid 30254838)
57. Ryan, M. J. The Túngara Frog, a Study in Sexual Selection and Communication (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1985).
58. Ryan, M. J. & Rand, A. S. Sexual selection in female perceptual space: How female túngara frogs perceive and respond to complex population variation in acoustic mating signals. Evolution 57, 2608-2618 (2003). (Pubitemid 37502562)
59. Hartmann, W. H. Signals, Sound, and Sensation (AIP Press, New York, 1998).
60. Zar, J. H. Biostatistical Analysis (Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 1999).