Auditory sensitivity and ecological relevance: the functional audiogram as modelled by the bat detecting moth ear

Jackson, Matthew E.; Asi, Navdeep S.; Fullard, James H.

doi:10.1007/s00359-010-0529-1

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1 ). The V-shaped auditory curve of S. frugiperda is similar to those described for other noctuoids [Roeder, 1964;Fenton and Fullard, 1979;Skals et al, 2005;Goerlitz et al, 2010;Jackson et al, 2010] with a maximum sensitivity range of between 15 and 30 kHz. Therefore, the 'typical' moth audiogram predicts lower thresholds for the calls of M. molossus than for the S2 and approach calls with PFs >35 kHz.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

Tone-Deaf Ears in Moths May Limit the Acoustic Detection of Two-Tone Bats

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Frequency alternation in the echolocation of insectivorous bats has been interpreted in relation to ranging and duty cycle, i.e. advantages for echolocation. The shifts in frequency of the calls of these so-called two-tone bats, however, may also play its role in the success of their hunting behavior for a preferred prey, the tympanate moth. How the auditory receptors (e.g. the A₁ and A₂ cells) in the moth's ear detect such frequency shifts is currently unknown. Here, we measured the auditory responses of the A₁ cell in the noctuid Spodoptera frugiperda to the echolocation hunting sequence of Molossus molossus, a two-tone bat. We also manipulated the bat calls to control for the frequency shifts by lowering the frequency band of the search and approach calls. The firing response of the A₁ receptor cell significantly decreases with the shift to higher frequencies during the search and approach phases of the hunting sequence of M. molossus; this could be explained by the receptor's threshold curve. The frequency dependence of the decrease in the receptor's response is supported by the results attained with the manipulated sequence: search and approach calls with the same minimum frequency are detected by the moth at the same threshold intensity. The two-tone bat M. molossus shows a call frequency alternation behavior that may enable it to overcome moth audition even in the mid-frequency range (i.e. 20-50 kHz) where moths hear best.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

Tone-Deaf Ears in Moths May Limit the Acoustic Detection of Two-Tone Bats

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since the elegant studies of Roeder and Treat in the 1950s and 1960s (Roeder and Treat, 1957Roeder, 1964) to recent refined works (Goerlitz et al, 2010;Corcoran et al, 2011), plentiful evidence reinforces the value of moth hearing in the bat-moth evolutionary acoustic arms race. As an indicator for moth hearing in evolutionary scenarios, however, so far only the neural auditory threshold curve of the most sensitive receptor, the A1 cell, has been used (Roeder, 1964;Skals et al, 2005;Goerlitz et al, 2010;Jackson et al, 2010). Alternative mechanical hearing audiograms may develop into valuable tools when analyzing moth audition, thus avoiding the extreme invasive nature of auditory electrophysiology, but the implicated techniques and approaches still need validation.…”

Section: Using the Distortion-products Mechanical Audiograms To Charamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Under pure-tone stimulation, both cell types exhibit identical tuning curves that differ by ~20dB in sensitivity; A1 is the most sensitive receptor (Suga, 1961;Coro and Pérez, 1993). However, when describing moth hearing, the neural tuning curve of the A1 cell serves as the standard (Skals et al, 2005;Fullard et al, 2008;Lane et al, 2008;Nakano et al, 2008;Jackson et al, 2010). Neural audiograms indicate that moth ears are broadly tuned with low Q 10dB (<2) values and frequencies at minimum threshold between 20 and 50kHz (Fullard, 1982;Surlykke, 1986).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sounds are played to the subject at a particular frequency and increased in intensity until the threshold criteria set by the experimenter is met, and the process is repeated for sounds spanning the animal's entire range of audible frequencies (Jackson et al, 2010). The validity of the neurophysiology studies of moth hearing rests on the assumption that the dissection and recording procedures do not affect the biomechanics of the ear.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mechanical tuning of the moth ear: distortion-product otoacoustic emissions and tympanal vibrations

Mora

Cobo-Cuan

Macías-Escrivá

et al. 2013

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThe mechanical tuning of the ear in the moth Empyreuma pugione was investigated by distortion-product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE) and laser Doppler vibrometry (LDV). DPOAE audiograms were assessed using a novel protocol that may be advantageous for non-invasive auditory studies in insects. To evoke DPOAE, two-tone stimuli within frequency and level ranges that generated a large matrix of values (960 frequency-level combinations) were used to examine the acoustic space in which the moth tympanum shows its best mechanical and acoustical responses. The DPOAE tuning curve derived from the response matrix resembles that obtained previously by electrophysiology, and is V-shaped and tuned to frequencies between 25 and 45kHz with low Q 10dB values of 1.21±0.26. In addition, while using a comparable stimulation regime, mechanical distortion in the displacement of the moth's tympanal membrane at the stigma was recorded with a laser Doppler vibrometer. The corresponding mechanical vibration audiograms were compared with DPOAE audiograms. Both types of audiograms have comparable shape, but most of the mechanical response fields are shifted towards lower frequencies. We showed for the first time in moths that DPOAE have a pronounced analogy in the vibration of the tympanic membrane where they may originate. Our work supports previous studies that point to the stigma (and the internally associated transduction machinery) as an important place of sound amplification in the moth ear, but also suggests a complex mechanical role for the rest of the transparent zone.

show abstract

“…The Ursidae share a number of ecological and life history characteristics (Stirling and Derocher, 1990), however, they also diverge widely in the topography of their habitat -a factor which can shape the evolution of both signal design and hearing sensitivity (Morton, 1975) -and the use of acoustic signals for communication and survival (Jackson et al, 2010). Together, these factors suggest that hearing capacity may be varied among bear species, especially for those exhibiting dramatic differences in these characteristics and in the relative evolutionary distance between them (Kutschera et al, 2014;Stirling and Derocher, 1990).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hearing sensitivity in context: Conservation implications for a highly vocal endangered species

Owen

Keating

Denes

et al. 2016

Global Ecology and Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tHearing sensitivity is a fundamental determinant of a species' vulnerability to anthropogenic noise, however little is known about the hearing capacities of most conservation dependent species. When audiometric data are integrated with other aspects of species' acoustic ecology, life history, and characteristic habitat topography and soundscape, predictions can be made regarding probable vulnerability to the negative impacts of different types of anthropogenic noise. Here we used an adaptive psychoacoustic technique to measure hearing thresholds in the endangered giant panda; a species that uses acoustic communication to coordinate reproduction. Our results suggest that giant pandas have functional hearing into the ultrasonic range, with good sensitivity between 10.0 and 16.0 kHz, and best sensitivity measured at 12.5-14.0 kHz. We estimated the lower and upper limits of functional hearing as 0.10 and 70.0 kHz respectively. While these results suggest that panda hearing is similar to that of some other terrestrial carnivores, panda hearing thresholds above 14.0 kHz were significantly lower (i.e., more sensitive) than those of the polar bear, the only other bear species for which data are available. We discuss the implications of this divergence, as well as the relationship between hearing sensitivity and the spectral parameters of panda vocalizations. We suggest that these data, placed in context, can be used towards the development of a sensory-based model of noise disturbance for the species.

show abstract

Auditory sensitivity and ecological relevance: the functional audiogram as modelled by the bat detecting moth ear

Cited by 8 publications

References 45 publications

Tone-Deaf Ears in Moths May Limit the Acoustic Detection of Two-Tone Bats

Tone-Deaf Ears in Moths May Limit the Acoustic Detection of Two-Tone Bats

Mechanical tuning of the moth ear: distortion-product otoacoustic emissions and tympanal vibrations

Hearing sensitivity in context: Conservation implications for a highly vocal endangered species

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About