Overview

Southall, Brandon L.; Bowles, Ann E.; Ellison, William T.; Finneran, James J.; Gentry, Roger L.; Greene, Charles R.; Kastak, David; Ketten, Darlene R.; Miller, James H.; Nachtigall, Paul E.; Richardson, W. John; Thomas, Jeànette A.; Tyack, Peter L.

doi:10.1578/am.33.4.2007.411

Cited by 602 publications

(274 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

271

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…National Research Council, 2003), as they have to set standards, for example, for acceptable sound levels for marine animals. However, for convenience, and because of a lack of knowledge, fixed levels above the basic hearing threshold of animals have often been used as criteria for acceptable sound levels (National Research Council, 2005;Southall et al, 2007). Therefore, we compare the response threshold levels we found in the present study to hearing threshold levels, to see if this approach is valid for tones in the fish species tested, and to evaluate the relationship between detection of a sound and response to it.…”

Section: Comparison Of Response Threshold Levels With Hearing Threshomentioning

confidence: 99%

Startle response of captive North Sea fish species to underwater tones between 0.1 and 64kHz

Kastelein¹,

Heul²,

Verboom³

et al. 2008

Marine Environmental Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Comparison Of Response Threshold Levels With Hearing Threshomentioning

confidence: 99%

Startle response of captive North Sea fish species to underwater tones between 0.1 and 64kHz

Kastelein¹,

Heul²,

Verboom³

et al. 2008

Marine Environmental Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Concern about the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals has led to attempts to establish acoustic safety criteria for underwater noise (Southall et al, 2007). Noise criteria often contain some form of frequency-selective weighting according to the perception of the target species, so that single thresholds apply to many sounds irrespective of their frequency spectra.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Equal latency contours and auditory weighting functions for the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)

Wensveen

Huijser²,

Hoek³

et al. 2014

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Loudness perception by human infants and animals can be studied under the assumption that sounds of equal loudness elicit equal reaction times (RTs). Simple RTs of a harbour porpoise to narrowband frequency-modulated signals were measured using a behavioural method and an RT sensor based on infrared light. Equal latency contours, which connect equal RTs across frequencies, for reference values of 150−200 ms (10 ms intervals) were derived from median RTs to 1 s signals with sound pressure levels (SPLs) of 59-168 dB re. 1 μPa and centre frequencies of 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 16, 31.5, 63, 80 and 125 kHz. The higher the signal level was above the hearing threshold of the harbour porpoise, the quicker the animal responded to the stimulus (median RT 98−522 ms). Equal latency contours roughly paralleled the hearing threshold at relatively low sensation levels (higher RTs). The difference in shape between the hearing threshold and the equal latency contours was more pronounced at higher levels (lower RTs); a flattening of the contours occurred for frequencies below 63 kHz. Relationships of the equal latency contour levels with the hearing threshold were used to create smoothed functions assumed to be representative of equal loudness contours. Auditory weighting functions were derived from these smoothed functions that may be used to predict perceived levels and correlated noise effects in the harbour porpoise, at least until actual equal loudness contours become available.

show abstract

“…Increased awareness of anthropogenic sound input, in turn, has launched scientific inquiry into the underwater hearing capabilities of aquatic inhabitants, such as mammals, bony and cartilaginous fishes, sea turtles and invertebrates (Richardson et al, 1995;Casper et al, 2003;Bartol and Ketten, 2006;Casper and Mann, 2006;Hu et al, 2009;Wysocki et al, 2009;Mooney et al, 2010;Anderson and Mann, 2011;Popper and Fay, 2011;Christensen-Dalsgaard et al, 2012;Martin et al, 2012). While considerable hearing research has been conducted on fishes and marine mammals (Richardson et al, 1995;Wartzok and Ketten, 1999;Southall et al, 2007;Webb et al, 2008), much less is known about sea turtle hearing.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ontogenetic investigation of underwater hearing capabilities of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) using a dual testing approach

Lavender

Bartol

2014

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sea turtles reside in different acoustic environments with each life history stage and may have different hearing capacity throughout ontogeny. For this study, two independent yet complementary techniques for hearing assessment, i.e. behavioral and electrophysiological audiometry, were employed to (1) measure hearing in post-hatchling and juvenile loggerhead sea turtles Caretta caretta (19-62 cm straight carapace length) to determine whether these migratory turtles exhibit an ontogenetic shift in underwater auditory detection and (2) evaluate whether hearing frequency range and threshold sensitivity are consistent in behavioral and electrophysiological tests. Behavioral trials first required training turtles to respond to known frequencies, a multi-stage, time-intensive process, and then recording their behavior when they were presented with sound stimuli from an underwater speaker using a two-response forced-choice paradigm. Electrophysiological experiments involved submerging restrained, fully conscious turtles just below the air-water interface and recording auditory evoked potentials (AEPs) when sound stimuli were presented using an underwater speaker. No significant differences in behavior-derived auditory thresholds or AEPderived auditory thresholds were detected between post-hatchling and juvenile sea turtles. While hearing frequency range (50-1000/1100 Hz) and highest sensitivity (100-400 Hz) were consistent in audiograms pooled by size class for both behavior and AEP experiments, both post-hatchlings and juveniles had significantly higher AEP-derived than behavior-derived auditory thresholds, indicating that behavioral assessment is a more sensitive testing approach. The results from this study suggest that post-hatchling and juvenile loggerhead sea turtles are low-frequency specialists, exhibiting little differences in threshold sensitivity and frequency bandwidth despite residence in acoustically distinct environments throughout ontogeny.

show abstract

Overview

Cited by 602 publications

References 0 publications

Startle response of captive North Sea fish species to underwater tones between 0.1 and 64kHz

Startle response of captive North Sea fish species to underwater tones between 0.1 and 64kHz

Equal latency contours and auditory weighting functions for the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)

Ontogenetic investigation of underwater hearing capabilities of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) using a dual testing approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About