2012
DOI: 10.1121/1.4763546
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Behavioral evidence for auditory induction in a species of rodent: Mongolian gerbil (Meriones unguiculatus)

Abstract: When a segment of sound of interest is interrupted by a loud extraneous noise, humans perceive that the missing sound continues during the intrusive noise. This restoration of auditory information occurs in perceptions of both speech and non-speech sounds (e.g., tone bursts), a phenomenon referred to as auditory induction. In this study, Mongolian gerbils were trained with standard Go/No-Go operant conditioning to discriminate continuous tone bursts (the Go stimulus) from tone bursts with a silent gap in the m… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

0
3
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
3
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, given that we also found no evidence of the continuity illusion in túngara frogs—which have a simple call composed of a continuous, frequency-modulated sweep, similar to those used previously to investigate induction in humans and other animals (Ciocca & Bregman, 1987; Kluender & Jenison, 1992; Sugita, 1997)—these three studies suggest that anurans may indeed lack neural mechanisms that function to restore missing or masked acoustic elements of sounds. These combined results stand in stark contrast to those from previous studies of songbirds ( Sturnus vulgaris ; Braaten & Leary, 1999; Seeba & Klump, 2009), domestic cats (Sugita, 1997), Mongolian gerbils (Kobayasi, Usami, & Riquimaroux, 2012), rhesus macaques (Petkov et al, 2003), and cotton-top tamarins (Miller et al, 2001), which confirm that birds and mammals experience auditory induction. What methodological, neurophysiological, or functional explanations might account for this emerging pattern of taxonomic differences?…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…However, given that we also found no evidence of the continuity illusion in túngara frogs—which have a simple call composed of a continuous, frequency-modulated sweep, similar to those used previously to investigate induction in humans and other animals (Ciocca & Bregman, 1987; Kluender & Jenison, 1992; Sugita, 1997)—these three studies suggest that anurans may indeed lack neural mechanisms that function to restore missing or masked acoustic elements of sounds. These combined results stand in stark contrast to those from previous studies of songbirds ( Sturnus vulgaris ; Braaten & Leary, 1999; Seeba & Klump, 2009), domestic cats (Sugita, 1997), Mongolian gerbils (Kobayasi, Usami, & Riquimaroux, 2012), rhesus macaques (Petkov et al, 2003), and cotton-top tamarins (Miller et al, 2001), which confirm that birds and mammals experience auditory induction. What methodological, neurophysiological, or functional explanations might account for this emerging pattern of taxonomic differences?…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…Reasons why frequencies one octave above the CF would evoke s9 remain speculative. But for the perception of communication calls which commonly consist of several harmonics (Medvedev and Kanwal, 2008 ; Kobayasi et al, 2012 ) a sink coding for higher frequencies would be of behavioral advantage as it could provide additional activity alongside s5 in layer V leading to subsequent behavior related areas being activated over a longer time period. The extent of synaptic activity was significantly reduced for CF24+ stimuli compared to CF80 while onset latency depth remained unchanged (Figure 8 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The perceptual consequences of this are unknown, but ambient noise can have interactive effects with signal degradation that are not necessarily detrimental. An example of this would be the well-known and taxonomically widespread phenomenon of perceptual restoration (where missing signals are perceived as being heard when replaced with potentially masking noise; Warren 1970;Braaten and Leary 1999;Seeba et al 2010;Kobayasi et al 2012). It remains to be tested whether urban noise is merely overlaying a detrimental effect on top of signal degradation or whether it could actually counteract certain types of signal degradation related to air turbulence or reflective surfaces during propagation.…”
Section: Signal Masking and Masking Avoidancementioning
confidence: 95%