Taking the sensory approach: How individual differences in sensory perception can influence mate choice

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 84, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 1283-1294

  Ronald, Kelly L ^a   Fernández Juricic, Esteban ^a   Lucas, Jeffrey R ^a  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Assortative mating; Communication; Honest signalling; Individual variation; Intrasexual selection; Sensory drive

Indexed keywords

ASSORTATIVE MATING; COMMUNICATION BEHAVIOR; COURTSHIP; FITNESS; HONEST SIGNALING; INTRASEXUAL INTERACTION; MATE CHOICE; PERCEPTION; SENSOR;

EID: 84870401187     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.09.015     Document Type: Review

References (195)

1. Akre K.L., Farris H.E., Lea A.M., Page R.A., Ryan M.J. Signal perception in frogs and bats and the evolution of mating signals. Science 2011, 333:751-752.
2. Allee S.J., Markham M.R., Stoddard P.K. Androgens enhance plasticity of an electric communication signal in female knifefish, Brachyhypopomus pinnicaudatus. Hormones and Behavior 2009, 56:264-273.
3. Al-Mana D., Ceramic B., Djahanbakhch O., Luxon L.M. Alteration in auditory function during the ovarian cycle. Hearing Research 2010, 268:114-122.
4. Alonso J.C., Magana M., Martin C.A., Palacin C. Sexual traits as quality indicators in lekking male great bustards. Ethology 2010, 116:1084-1098.
5. Andersson M. Sexual Selection 1994, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
6. Arch V.S., Peter M.N. Sexual hearing: the influence of sex hormones on acoustic communication in frogs. Hearing Research 2009, 252:15-20.
7. Archer S.N., Endler J.A., Lythgoe J.N., Partridge J.C. Visual pigment polymorphism in the guppy Poecilia reticulate. Vision Research 1987, 27:1243-1252.
8. Bailey N.W. Mate choice plasticity in the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus: effects of social experience in multiple modalities. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2011, 65:2269-2278.
9. Bailey N., Zuk M. Acoustic experience shapes female mate choice in field crickets. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2008, 275:2645-2650.
10. Bateson M., Healy S.D. Comparative evaluation and its implications for mate choice. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2005, 20:659-664.
11. Bennett J.H. On the theory of random mating. Annals of Eugenics 1954, 18:311-317.
12. Bertin A., Calandreau L., Arnould C., Levy F. The developmental stage of chicken embryos modulates the impact of in ovo olfactory stimulation on food preferences. Chemical Senses 2012, 37:253-261.
13. Bigiani A., Cristiani R., Fieni F., Ghiaroni V., Bagnoli P., Pietra P. Postnatal development of membrane excitability in taste cells of the mouse vallate papilla. Journal of Neuroscience 2002, 22:493-504.
14. Biro P.A., Stamps J.A. Do consistent individual differences in metabolic rate promote consistent individual differences in behavior?. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2010, 25:653-659.
15. Boettcher F.A., Mills J.H., Norton B.L. Age-related changes in auditory evoked potentials of gerbils. II. Response latencies. Hearing Research 1993, 71:146-156.
16. Bowmaker J.K., Kovach J.K., Whitmore A.V., Lowe E.R. Visual pigments and oil droplets in genetically manipulated and carotenoid deprived quail: a microspectrophotometric study. Vision Research 1993, 33:571-578.
17. Bradbury J.W., Vehrencamp S.L. Principles of Animal Communication 2011, Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts. 2nd edn.
18. Brennan P.A., Kendrick K.M. Mammalian social odours: attraction and individual recognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 2006, 361:2061-2078.
19. Brittan-Powell E.F., Dooling R.J. Development of auditory sensitivity in budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2004, 115:3092-3102.
20. Bro-Jørgensen J. Dynamics of multiple signaling systems: animal communication in a world of flux. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2009, 25:292-300.
21. Buchanan K.L., Spencer K.A., Goldsmith A.R., Catchpole C.K. Song as an honest signal of past developmental stress in the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2003, 270:1149-1156.
22. Burley N. The meaning of assortative mating. Ethology and Sociobiology 1983, 4:191-203.
23. Cain K.E., Ketterson E.D. Competitive females are successful females; phenotype, mechanism, and selection in a common songbird. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2012, 66:241-252.
24. Campenhausen M.V., Kirschfield K. Spectral sensitivity of the accessory optic system of the pigeon. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 1998, 183:1-6.
25. Candolin U. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biological Reviews 2003, 78:575-595.
26. Caras M.L., Brenowitz E., Rubel E.W. Peripheral auditory processing changes seasonally in Gambel's white-crowned sparrow. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 2010, 196:581-599.
27. Castellano S., Cermelli P. Sampling and assessment accuracy in mate choice: a random-walk model of information processing in mating. Journal of Theoretical Biology 2011, 274:161-169.
28. Castellano S., Cadeddu G., Cermelli P. Computational mate choice: theory and empirical evidence. Behavioural Processes 2012, 90:261-277.
29. Chaine A.S., Lyon B.E. Adaptive plasticity in female mate choice dampens sexual selection on male ornaments in the lark bunting. Science 2008, 319:459-462.
30. Chakraborty M., Burmeister S.S. Estradiol induces sexual behavior in female túngara frogs. Hormones and Behavior 2009, 55:106-112.
31. Chenoweth S.F., Blows M.W. Dissecting the complex genetic basis of mate choice. Nature Reviews Genetics 2006, 7:681-692.
32. Chouinard A.J. Rapid onset of mate quality assessment via chemical signals in a woodland salamander (Plethodon cinereus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2012, 66:765-775.
33. Clark D.L., Roberts A.J., Uetz G.W. Eavesdropping and signal matching in visual courtship displays of spiders. Biology Letters 2012, 8:375-378.
34. Coleman S.W., Patricelli G.L., Borgia G. Variable female preferences drive complex male displays. Nature 2004, 428:742-745.
35. Cotton S., Small J., Pomiankowski A. Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Current Biology 2006, 16:R755-R765.
36. Cotton S., Rogers D.W., Small J., Pomiankowski A., Fowler K. Variation in preference for a male ornament is positively associated with female eyespan in the stalk-eyed fly Diasemopsis meigenii. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2006, 273:1287-1292.
37. Cummings M.E., Bernal X.E., Reynaga R., Rand A.S., Ryan M.J. Visual sensitivity to a conspicuous male cue varies by reproductive state in Physalaemus pustulosus females. Journal of Experimental Biology 2008, 211:1203-1210.
38. Dangles O., Irschick D., Chittka L., Casas J. Variability in sensory ecology: expanding the bridge between physiology and evolutionary biology. Quarterly Review of Biology 2009, 84:51-74.
39. De Groof G., Gwinner H., Steiger S., Kempenaers B., Van der Linden A. Neural correlates of behavioural olfactory sensitivity changes seasonally in European starlings. PLoS ONE 2010, 5:1-7.
40. Dematte M.L., Endrizzi I., Biasioli F., Corollaro M.L., Zampini M., Gasperi F. Individual variability in the awareness of odors: demographic parameters and odor identification ability. Chemosensory Perception 2011, 4:175-185.
41. Donna M., Raphael P. Estradiol-dependent modulation of auditory processing and selectivity in songbirds. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology 2011, 32:287-302.
42. Doty R.L., Cameron L.E. Sex differences and reproductive hormone influences on human odor perception. Physiology & Behavior 2009, 97:213-228.
43. Doty R.L., Shaman P., Applebaum S.L., Giberson R., Siksorski L., Rosenberg L. Smell identification ability: changes with age. Science 1984, 226:1441-1443.
44. Dukas R. Causes and consequences of limited attention. Brain, Behavior, Ecology 2004, 63:197-210.
45. Edward D.A., Chapman T. The evolution and significance of male mate choice. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2011, 26:647-654.
46. Egger B., Klaefiger Y., Theis A., Salzburger W. A sensory bias has triggered the evolution of egg-spots in cichlid fishes. PLoS ONE 2011, 6:1-7.
47. Elias D.O., Sivalinghem S., Mason A.C., Andrade M.C.B., Kasumovic M.M. Vibratory communication in the jumping spider Phidippus clarus: substrate-borne courtship signals are important for male mating success. Ethology 2010, 116:990-998.
48. Endler J.A. On the measurement and classification of colour in studies of animal colour patterns. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 1990, 41:315-352.
49. Endler J.A. Signals, signal conditions, and the direction of evolution. American Naturalist, Supplement 1992, 139:S125-S153.
50. Endler J.A. Sensory drive: does sensory biology bias or constrain the direction of evolution?. American Naturalist, Supplement 1992, 139:S1-S53.
51. Endler J.A. Sensory biases and the evolution of sensory systems. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 1995, 10:489.
52. Endler J.A., Basolo A.L. Sensory ecology, receiver biases, and sexual selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 1998, 13:415-420.
53. Endler J.A., Mielke P.W. Comparing entire colour patterns as birds see them. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 2005, 86:405-431.
54. Fawcett T.W., Johnstone R.A. Optimal assessment of multiple cues. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2003, 270:1637-1643.
55. Fisher H.S., Rosenthal G.G. Hungry females show stronger mating preferences. Behavioral Ecology 2006, 17:979-981.
56. Fitzgerald M.E.C. Functional and morphological assessment of age-related changes in the choroid and outer retina in pigeons. Visual Neuroscience 2001, 18:299-317.
57. Folstad I., Karter A.J. Parasites, bright males, and the immunocompetence handicap. American Naturalist 1992, 139:603-622.
58. Fuller R.C., Noa L.A. Female mating preferences, lighting environment, and a test of the sensory bias hypothesis in the bluefin killifish. Animal Behaviour 2010, 80:23-35.
59. Gall M.D., Lucas J.R. Sex differences in auditory filters of brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater). Journal of Comparative Physiology A 2010, 196:559-567.
60. Gallant J.R., Arnegard M.E., Sullivan J.P., Carlson B.A., Hopkins C.D. Signal variation and its morphological correlates in Paramormyrops kingsleya provide insight into the evolution of electrogenic signal diversity in mormyrid electric fish. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 2011, 197:799-817.
61. Gibson J.S., Uetz G.W. Effect of rearing environment and food availability on seismic signaling in male wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae). Animal Behaviour 2012, 84:85-92.
62. Gleason J.M., Pierece A.A., Vezeau A.L., Goodman S.F. Different sensory modalities are required for successful courtship in two species of the Drosophila willistoni group. Animal Behaviour 2012, 83:217-227.
63. Goldsmith T.H. Photoreception and vision in invertebrates. American Scientist 1984, 72:516-517.
64. Goldsmith T.H., Butler B.K. Color vision of the budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus): hue matches, tetrachromacy, and intensity discrimination. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 2005, 191:933-951.
65. Goodwin T.W. The Biochemistry of Carotenoids. Vol. 2: Animals 1984, Chapman & Hall, New York.
66. Gordon S.D., Uetz G.W. Multimodal communication of wolf spiders on different substrates: evidence for behavioural plasticity. Animal Behaviour 2011, 81:367-375.
67. Grant P.R., Grant B.R. Hybridization, sexual imprinting, and mate choice. American Naturalist 1997, 149:1-28.
68. Gray D.A. Intrinsic factors affecting female choice in house crickets: time cost, female age, nutritional condition, body size, and size-relative reproductive investment. Journal of Insect Behavior 1999, 12:691-700.
69. Griffith S.C., Parker T.H., Olson V.A. Melanin- versus carotenoid-based sexual signals: is the difference really so black and red?. Animal Behaviour 2006, 71:749-763.
70. Groeger G., Cotton P.A., Williamson R. Ontogenetic changes in the visual acuity of Sepia officinalis measured using the optomotor response. Canadian Journal of Zoology 2005, 83:274-279.
71. Guilford T., Dawkins M.S. Receiver psychology and the evolution of animal signals. Animal Behaviour 1991, 42:1-14.
72. Gurney K. Neural networks for perceptual processing: from stimulation tools to theories. Modeling Perception with Artificial Neural Networks 2010, 7-34. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. C.R. Tosh, G. Ruxton (Eds.).
73. Gwynne D.T., Bailey W.J. Female-female competition in katydids: sexual selection for increased sensitivity to a male signal?. Evolution 1999, 53:546-551.
74. Hall J.W. New Handbook of Auditory Evoked Responses 2007, Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
75. Härdling R., Kokko H. The evolution of prudent choice. Evolutionary Ecology Research 2005, 7:697-715.
76. Harshaw C., Lickliter R. Biased embryos: prenatal experience alters the postnatal malleability of auditory preferences in bobwhite quail. Developmental Psychobiology 2011, 53:291-302.
77. Hart N.S., Lisney T.J., Collin S.P. Cone photoreceptor oil droplet pigmentation is affected by ambient light intensity. Journal of Experimental Biology 2006, 209:4776-4787.
78. Hebets E.A. Current status and future directions of research in complex signaling. Current Zoology 2011, 57:i-v.
79. Hebets E.A., Papaj D.R. Complex signal function: developing a framework of testable hypotheses. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2005, 57:197-214.
80. Hedrick A.V., Kortet R. Effects of body size on selectivity for mating cues in different sensory modalities. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 2012, 105:160-168.
81. Hendry A.P., Day T., Copper A.B. Optimal size and number of propagules: allowance for discrete stages and effects of maternal size on reproductive output and offspring fitness. American Naturalist 2001, 157:387-407.
82. Henry K.S., Lucas J.R. Auditory sensitivity and the frequency selectivity of auditory filters in the Carolina chickadee, Poecile carolinensis. Animal Behaviour 2010, 80:497-507.
83. Henry K.S., Gall M.D., Bidelman G.M., Lucas J.R. Songbirds tradeoff auditory frequency resolution and temporal resolution. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 2011, 197:351-359.
84. Herb B.M., Biron S.A., Kidd M.R. Courtship by subordinate male Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens: their response to eavesdropping and naïve females. Behaviour 2003, 140:71-78.
85. Holveck M.J., Riebel K. Low-quality females prefer low-quality males when choosing a mate. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2010, 277:153-160.
86. Holveck M.J., Geberzahn N., Riebel K. An experimental test of condition-dependent male and female mate choice in zebra finches. PLoS ONE 2011, 6:1-10.
87. Horth L. Sensory genes and mate choice: evidence that duplications, mutations, and adaptive evolution alter variation in mating cue genes and their receptors. Genomics 2007, 90:159-175.
88. Houde A.E. Monographs in Behavior and Ecology: Sex, Color and Mate Choice in Guppies 1997, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 2nd edn.
89. Hultcrantz M., Siomoska R., Stenberg A.E. Estrogen and hearing: a summary of recent investigations. Acta Oto-Laryngologica 2006, 126:10-14.
90. Hunt J., Brooks R., Jennions M.D. Female mate choice as a condition-dependent life history trait. American Naturalist 2005, 166:79-92.
91. Jawor J.M., Linville S.U., Beall S.M., Breitwisch R. Assortative mating by multiple ornaments in northern cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis). Behavioral Ecology 2003, 14:515-520.
92. Jennions M.D., Petrie M. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biology Reviews 1997, 72:283-327.
93. Jennions M.D., Blackwell P.R.Y., Passmore N.I. Repeatability of mate choice: the effect of size in the African painted reed frog, Hyperolius marmoratus. Animal Behaviour 1995, 49:181-186.
94. Johansson B.G., Jones T.M. The role of chemical communication in mate choice. Biological Reviews 2007, 82:265-289.
95. Johnstone R.A. Honest signaling, perceptual error, and the evolution of 'all-or-nothing' displays. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 1994, 256:169-175.
96. Kasurak A.V., Zielinski B.S., Higgs D.M. Reproductive status influences multisensory integration responses in female round gobies, Neogobius melanostomus. Animal Behaviour 2012, 83:1179-1185.
97. Kekäläinen J., Leppänen H.R., Huuskonen H., Lai Y.T., Valkama H., Taskinen J. The information content of odour, colour, and tactile cues in the mate choice of minnows. Behaviour 2011, 148:909-925.
98. Knott B., Berg M.L., Morgan E.R., Buchanan K.L., Bowmaker J.K., Bennett A.T.D. Avian retinal oil droplets: dietary manipulation of colour vision?. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2010, 277:953-962.
99. Knott B., Bowmaker J.K., Berg M.L., Bennet A.T.D. Absorbance of retinal oil droplets of the budgerigar: sex, spatial, and plumage morph related variation. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 2012, 198:43-51.
100. Kodric-Brown A., Nicoletto P.F. Age and experience affect female choice in the guppy (Poecilia reticulate). American Naturalist 2001, 157:316-323.
101. Lailvaux S.P., Kasumovic M.M. Defining individual quality over lifetimes and selective contexts. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2011, 278:321-328.
102. Lea J., Halliday T., Dyson M. Reproductive stage and history affect the phonotactic preferences of female midwife toads, Alytes mulentensis. Animal Behaviour 2000, 60:423-427.
103. Lee J.Y., Holden L.A., Djamgoz M.B.A. Effects of ageing on spatial aspects of the pattern electroretinogram in male and female quail. Vision Research 1997, 37:505-514.
104. Lerch A., Rat-Fischer L., Gratier M., Nagle L. Diet quality affects mate choice in domestic female canary Serinus canaria. Ethology 2011, 117:769-776.
105. Lessard N., Pare M., Lepore F., Lassonde W. Early blind human subjects localize sound sources better than sighted subjects. Nature 1998, 395:278-280.
106. Lickliter R. Prenatal sensory ecology and experience: implications for perceptual and behavioral development in precocial birds. Advances in the Study of Behavior 2005, 35:235-274.
107. Lind O., Kelber A. Avian colour vision: effects of variation in receptor sensitivity and noise data on model predictions as compared to behavioural results. Vision Research 2009, 49:1939-1947.
108. Lundström J.N., Gordon A.R., Wise P., Frasnelli J. Individual differences in the chemical senses: is there a common sensitivity?. Chemical Senses 2012, 37:371-378.
109. Lynch K.S., Wilczynski W. Reproductive hormones modify reception of species-typical communication signals in a female anuran. Brain, Behaviour, and Evolution 2008, 71:143-150.
110. Lynch K.S., Crews D., Ryan M.J., Wilczynzki W. Hormonal state influences aspects of female mate choice in the túngara frog (Physalaemus pustulosus). Hormones and Behavior 2006, 49:450-457.
111. MacDougall-Shackleton E.A., Stewart K.A., Potvin D.A., Tennenhouse E. The rich get richer: song complexity predicts song element sharing and song output in song sparrows Melospiza melodia. Animal Behaviour 2009, 78:141-146.
112. McGurk H., MacDonald J. Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature 1976, 264:746-748.
113. MacLaren R.D., Gagnon J., He R. Female bias for enlarged male body and dorsal fins in Xiphophorus variatus. Behavioural Processes 2011, 87:197-202.
114. McNamara J.M., Houston A.I. Integrating function and mechanism. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2009, 24:670-675.
115. Mártin J., López P. Female sensory bias may allow honest chemical signaling by male Iberian rock lizards. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2008, 62:1927-1934.
116. Martins E.P., Ord T.J., Davenport S.W. Combining motions into complex displays: playbacks with a robotic lizard. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2005, 58:351-360.
117. Maruska K.P., Fernald R.D. Steroid receptor expression in the fish inner ear varies with sex, social status, and reproductive state. BioMed Central Neuroscience 2010, 11:1-17.
118. Maruska K.P., Ung U.S., Fermald R.D. The African cichlid fish Astatotilapia burtoni: uses acoustic communication for reproduction: sound production, hearing and behavioral significance. PLoS ONE 2012, 7:1-11.
119. Matos R.L., Peake T.M., McGregor P.K. Timing of presentation of an audience: aggressive priming and audience effects in male displays of Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens). Behavioural Processes 2003, 63:53-61.
120. Miller C.T., Bee M.A. Receiver psychology turns 20: is it time for a broader approach?. Animal Behaviour 2012, 83:331-343.
121. Miranda J.A., Liu R.C. Dissecting natural sensory plasticity: hormones and experience in a maternal context. Hearing Research 2009, 252:21-28.
122. Miranda J.A., Wilczynski W. Female reproductive state influences the auditory midbrain response. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 2009, 195:341-349.
123. Møller A.P., Pomiankowski A. Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments?. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1993, 32:167-176.
124. Moller P. Multimodal sensory integration in weakly electric fish: a behavioral account. Journal of Physiology 2002, 96:547-556.
125. Moore P.J., Moore A.J. Reproductive aging and mating: the ticking of the biological clock in female cockroaches. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 2001, 98:9171-9176.
126. Moskalik B., Uetz G.W. Female hunger state affects mate choice of a sexually selected trait in a wolf spider. Animal Behaviour 2011, 81:715-722.
127. Muchlinski M.N., Docherty B.A., Alport L.J., Burrows A.M., Smith T.D., Paesani S.M. Behavioral and ecological consequences of sex-based differences in gustatory anatomy in Cebus apella. Anatomical Record 2011, 294:2179-2192.
128. Munoz N.E., Blumstein D.T. Multisensory perception in uncertain environments. Behavioral Ecology 2012, 23:457-462.
129. Murphy C., Schubert C.R., Cruickshanks K.J., Klein B.E.K., Klein R., Nondahl D.M. Prevalence of olfactory impairment in older adults. Journal of the American Medical Association 2002, 288:2307-2312.
130. Myhre L.C., de Jong K., Forsgren E., Amundsen T. Sex roles and mutual mate choice matter during mate sampling. American Naturalist 2012, 179:741-755.
131. Nava S.S., Conway M., Martins E.P. Sex-specific visual performance: female lizards outperform males in motion detection. Biology Letters 2009, 5:732-734.
132. Njegovan M., Weisman R. Pitch discrimination in field- and isolation-reared black-capped chickadees (Parus atricapillus). Journal of Comparative Physiology 1997, 111:294-301.
133. Nowicki S., Searcy W.A., Peters S. Brain development, song learning, and mate choice in birds: a review and experimental test of the 'nutritional stress hypothesis'. Journal of Comparative Physiology 2002, 188:1003-1014.
134. Panda-Jonas S., Jonas J.B., Jakobczyk Zmija M. Retinal photoreceptor density declines with age. Ophthalmology 1995, 102:1853-1859.
135. Pankhurst P.M., Eagar R. Changes in visual morphology through life history stages of the New Zealand snapper, Pagrus auratus. New Zealand Journal of Marine Freshwater Research 1996, 30:79-90.
136. Partan S.R., Marler P. Behavior: communication goes multimodal. Science 1999, 283:1272-1273.
137. Partan S.R., Marler P. Issues in the classification of multimodal communication signals. American Naturalist 2005, 166:231-245.
138. Parthasarathy A., Bartlett E.L. Age-related auditory deficits in temporal processing in F-344 rats. Neuroscience 2011, 192:619-630.
139. Patricelli G.L. Male displays adjusted to female's response. Nature 2002, 415:279-280.
140. Perrachione T.K., Del Tufo S.N., Gabrieli J.D.E. Human voice recognition depends on language ability. Science 2011, 333:595.
141. Phan M.L., Vicario D.S. Hemispheric differences in processing of vocalizations depends on early experience. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 2010, 107:2301-2306.
142. Phelps S.M. Sensory ecology and perceptual allocation: new prospects for neural networks. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 2007, 362:355-367.
143. Phillmore L.S., Sturdy C.B., Weisman R.G. Does reduced social contact affect discrimination of distance cues and individual vocalizations?. Animal Behaviour 2003, 65:911-922.
144. Porciatti V., Hodos W., Signorini G., Bramanti F. Electroretinographic changes in aged pigeons. Vision Research 1991, 31:661-668.
145. Pruitt J.N., DiRienzo N., Kralj-Fiser S., Johnson J.C., Sih A. Individual- and condition-dependent effects on habitat and choosiness. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2011, 65:1987-1995.
146. Ramsey M.E., Wong R.Y., Cummings M.E. Estradiol, reproductive cycle, and preference behavior in a northern swordtail. General and Comparative Endocrinology 2011, 170:381-390.
147. Rauschecker J.P., Kniepert U. Auditory localization behavior in visually deprived cats. European Journal of Neuroscience 1995, 6:149-160.
148. Reid M.L., Weatherhead P.J. Mate-choice criteria of Ipswich sparrows: the importance of variability. Animal Behaviour 1990, 40:538-544.
149. Rick I.P., Mehlis M., Bakker T.C.M. Male red ornamentation is associated with female red sensitivity in sticklebacks. PLoS ONE 2011, 6:1-6.
150. Riebel K. Experimental manipulation of rearing environment influences adult female zebra finch song preference. Animal Behaviour 2009, 78:1397-1404.
151. Robinson D.M., Tudor S.M., Morris M.R. Female preference and the evolution of an exaggerated male ornament: the shape of the preference function matters. Animal Behaviour 2011, 81:1015-1021.
152. Rohmann K.N., Bass A.H. Seasonal plasticity of auditory hair cell frequency sensitivity correlates with plasma steroid levels in vocal fish. Journal of Experimental Biology 2011, 214:1931-1942.
153. Rosvall K.A. Intrasexual competition in females: evidence for sexual selection?. Behavioral Ecology 2011, 22:1131-1140.
154. Rowe C. Receiver psychology and the evolution of multicomponent signals. Animal Behaviour 1999, 58:921-931.
155. Rutledge J.M., Miller A., Uetz G.W. Exposure to multiple sensory cues as a juvenile affects adult female mate preferences in wolf spiders. Animal Behaviour 2010, 80:419-426.
156. Ryan M.J. Female mate choice in a Neotropical frog. Science 1980, 209:523-525.
157. Ryan M.J., Keddy-Hector A. Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. American Naturalist, Supplement 1992, 139:S4-S35.
158. Ryan M.J., Perrill S.A., Wilczynski W. Auditory tuning and call frequency predict population-based mating preferences in the cricket frog, Acris crepitans. American Naturalist 1992, 139:1370-1383.
159. Searcy W.A., Nowicki S. The Evolution of Animal Communication: Reliability and Deception in Signaling 2005, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
160. Schlupp I., Riesch R., Tobler M., Plath M., Parzefall J., Schartl M. A novel, sexually selected trait in poeciliid fishes: female preference for mustache-like, rostral filaments in male Poecilia sphenops. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2010, 64:1849-1855.
161. Sherman P.W., Wolfenbarger L.L. Genetic correlations as tests for sensory exploitation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 1995, 10:246-247.
162. Sisneros J.A. Seasonal plasticity of auditory saccular sensitivity in the vocal plainfish midshipman fish, Porichthys notatus. Journal of Neurophysiology 2009, 102:1121-1131.
163. Smittkamp S.E., Durham D. Contributions of age, cochlear integrity, and auditory environment to avian cochlear nucleus metabolism. Hearing Research 2004, 195:79-89.
164. Stearns S.C. The Evolution of Life Histories 1992, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
165. Stuart-Fox D., Moussalli A., Whiting M.J. Natural selection on social signals: signal efficacy and the evolution of chameleon display coloration. American Naturalist 2007, 170:916-930.
166. Sturdy C.B., Phillmore L.S., Sartort J.J., Weisman R.G. Reduced social contact causes auditory perceptual deficits in zebra finches, Taeniopygia guttata. Animal Behaviour 2001, 62:1207-1218.
167. ten Cate C., Rowe C. Biases in signal evolution: learning makes a difference. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2007, 22:380-386.
168. Toomey M.B., McGraw K.J. Seasonal, sexual, and quality related variation in retinal carotenoid accumulation in the house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus). Functional Ecology 2009, 23:321-329.
169. Toomey M.B., McGraw K.J. The effects of dietary carotenoid intake on carotenoid accumulation in the retina of a wild bird, the house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus). Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 2010, 504:161-168.
170. Toomey M.B., McGraw K. Mate choice for a male carotenoid-based ornament is linked to female dietary carotenoid intake and accumulation. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2012, 12:3-15.
171. Toomey M.B., Butler M.W., Mcgraw K.J. Immune-system activation depletes retinal carotenoids in house finches (Carpodacus mexicanus). Journal of Experimental Biology 2010, 213:1709-1716.
172. Trivers R.L. Parental investment and sexual selection. Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man 1972, 136-179. Aldine, Chicago. B. Campbell (Ed.).
173. Tregenza T., Wedell N. Genetic compatibility, mate choice, and patterns of parentage: invited review. Molecular Ecology 2000, 9:1013-1027.
174. Tudor M.S., Morris M.R. Experience plays a role in female preference for symmetry in the swordtail fish Xiphophorus malinche. Ethology 2009, 115:812-822.
175. Verzijden M.N., Rosenthal G.G. Effects of sensory modality on learned mate preferences in female swordtails. Animal Behaviour 2011, 82:557-562.
176. Violle C., Enquist B.J., McGill B.J., Jiang L., Albert C.H., Hulshof C., Jung V., Messier J. The return of the variance: interspecific variability in community ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2012, 27:244-252.
177. Vorobyev M., Osorio D. Receptor noise as a determinant of colour threshold. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 1998, 265:351-358.
178. Vorobyev M., Osorio D., Bennett A.T.D. Tetrachromacy, oil droplets, and bird plumage colours. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 1998, 183:621-633.
179. Vyas A., Harding C., Borg L., Bogdan D. Acoustic characteristics, early experience, and endocrine status interact to modulate female zebra finches' behavioral responses to songs. Animal Behaviour 2009, 55:50-59.
180. Wagner W.E. Measuring female mating preferences. Animal Behaviour 1998, 55:1029-1042.
181. Whittaker D.J., Soini H.A., Atwell J.W., Hollars C., Novotny M.V., Ketterson E.D. Songbird chemosignals: volatile compounds in preen gland secretions vary among individuals, sexes, and populations. Behavioral Ecology 2010, 21:608-614.
182. Wickham L.A., Gao J.P., Toda I., Tocha E.M., Ono M., Sullivan D.A. Identification of androgen, estrogen, and progesterone receptor mRNAs in the eye. Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica 2000, 78:146-153.
183. Widemo F., Sæther S.A. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: causes and consequences of variation in mating preferences. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 1999, 14:26-31.
184. Wilgers D.J., Hebets E.A. Complex courtship displays facilitate male reproductive success and plasticity in signaling across variable environments. Current Zoology 2011, 2:175-186.
185. Wilgers D.J., Hebets E.A. Age related female mating decisions are condition dependent in wolf spiders. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 2012, 66:29-38.
186. Wilgers D.J., Hebets E.A. Seismic signaling is crucial for female mate choice in a multimodal signaling wolf spider. Ethology 2012, 118:387-397.
187. Wilson A.J., Nussey D.H. What is individual quality? An evolutionary perspective. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2010, 25:207-214.
188. Wingfield J.C., Hegner R.E., Dufty A.M., Ball G.F. The challenge hypothesis: theoretical implications for patterns of testosterone secretion, mating systems, and breeding strategies. American Naturalist 1990, 136:829-846.
189. Woodgate J.L., Bennett A.T.D., Leitner S., Catchpole K., Buchanan K.L. Developmental stress and female mate choice behaviour in the zebra finch. Animal Behaviour 2010, 79:1381-1390.
190. Woodgate J.L., Leitner S., Catchpole C.K., Berg M.L., Bennett A.T.D., Buchanan K.L. Developmental stressors that impair song learning in males do not appear to affect female preference in the zebra finch. Behavioral Ecology 2011, 22:566-573.
191. Wong R.Y., Hopkins C.D. Electrical and behavioral courtship displays in the mormyrid fish Brienomyrus brachyistius. Journal of Experimental Biology 2007, 210:2244-2252.
192. Wong R.Y., So P., Cummings M.E. How female size and male displays influence mate preference in a swordtail. Animal Behaviour 2011, 82:691-697.
193. Yoder K.M., Vicario D.S. To modulate and be modulated: estrogenic influences on auditory processing of communication signals within a socio-neuro-endocrine framework. Behavioral Neuroscience 2012, 126:17-28.
194. Zhang C.Z., Hua T.M., Li G.Z., Tang C.H., Sun Q.Y., Zhou P.L. Visual function declines during normal aging. Current Science 2008, 95:1544-1550.
195. Zuk M., Rotenberry J.T., Tinghitella R.M. Silent night: adaptive disappearance of a sexual signal in a parasitized population of field crickets. Biology Letters 2006, 2:521-524.