Journal of Comparative Physiology A

, Volume 158, Issue 3, pp 383–390 | Cite as

The great tit's (Parus major) auditory resolution in azimuth

  • G. M. Klump
  • W. Windt
  • E. Curio


  1. 1.

    Two male great tits (Parus major) were trained to distinguish between sounds from two locations in an operant two alternative, forced choice procedure with positive reinforcement.

  2. 2.

    The angle between the two sound sources, as experienced from the position of the experimental subject, was varied. The angle at which the birds scored 65% correct responses in 60 choices (which corresponds toP = 0.03, two-tailed, binomial test) was defined as the minimum resolvable angle (MRA).

  3. 3.

    The resolution in azimuth for four natural vocalizations, the ‘seeet’ alarm call, the ‘scolding’ call, the mobbing call, and a song element, was 45°, 16°, 20°, and 18°, respectively (Fig. 2). The MRAs correlated well with the results from artificial stimuli with a comparable frequency.

  4. 4.

    MRAs for 300 ms sine wave stimuli were determined from 500 Hz to 8 kHz: The u-shaped function relating MRA with frequency had a minimum at 2 kHz, with a best MRA of 20°. At 500 Hz and 8 kHz the MRAs were 66.5° and 52°, respectively. MRA of a 300 ms white noise stimulus was 20.5° (Fig. 3).

  5. 5.

    The duration of the stimulus had no effect on the resolution in azimuth for a range of durations from 40 ms to 300 ms (Table 1). This suggests that the great tit may locate a sound source in an open loop fashion.



Azimuth Sound Source Open Loop Binomial Test Forced Choice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



minimum resolvable angle


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Brown CH (1982) Ventriloquial and locatable vocalizations in birds. Z Tierpsychol 59:338–350Google Scholar
  2. Coles RB, Lewis DB, Hill KG, Hutchings ME, Gower M (1980) Directional hearing in the Japanese quail (Coturnix c. japonica). II. Cochlear physiology. J Exp Biol 86:153–170Google Scholar
  3. Dooling RJ (1982) Auditory perception in birds. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller EH (eds) Acoustic communication in birds: Production, perception, and design features of sounds. Academic Press, New York London, pp 95–130Google Scholar
  4. Gatehouse RW, Shelton BR (1978) Sound localization in the bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus). Behav Biol 22:533–540Google Scholar
  5. Gompertz T (1961) The vocabulary of the Great Tit. Br Birds 54:359–394, 409–418Google Scholar
  6. Granit O (1941) Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Gehörsinns der Vögel. Ornis Fennica 18:49–71Google Scholar
  7. Hinde RA (1952) The behaviour of the great tit (Parus major) and related species. Behav Suppl 2:1–201Google Scholar
  8. Järvi T, Radesater T, Jakobsson S (1977) Individual recognition and variation in the great tit (Parus major). Biophon 5:4–9Google Scholar
  9. Jenkins WM, Masterton RB (1979) Sound localization in the pigeon (Columba livia). J Comp Physiol Psychol 93:403–413Google Scholar
  10. Klump GM (1984) Struktur und Funktion der LuftfeindAlarmrufe der Kohlmeise (Parus major) außerhalb der Brutzeit. Dissertation, Ruhr-University BochumGoogle Scholar
  11. Klump GM, Curio E (1983) Why don't spectra of songbirds' vocalizations correspond with the sensitivity maxima of their absolute threshold curves. Verh Dtsch Zool Ges 76:182Google Scholar
  12. Klump GM, Shalter MD (1984) Acoustic behaviour of birds and mammals in the predator context. I. Factors affecting the structure of alarm signals. II. The functional significance of alarm signals and their evolution. Z Tierpsychol 66:189–226Google Scholar
  13. Klump GM, Kretzschmar E, Curio E (1986) The hearing of an avian predator and its avian prey. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 18:317–323Google Scholar
  14. Knudsen EI (1980) Sound localization in birds. In: Popper AN, Fay RR (eds) Comparative studies of hearing in vertebrates. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 289–322Google Scholar
  15. Knudsen EI, Konishi M (1979) Mechanisms of sound localization in the barn owl (Tyto alba). J Comp Physiol 133:13–21Google Scholar
  16. Konishi M (1973) Locatable and nonlocatable acoustic signals for barn owls. Am Nat 107:775–785Google Scholar
  17. Kretzschmar E (1982) Wie hört ein Sperber (Accipiter nisus L.) Alarmrufe seiner Beutevögel? Thesis, Ruhr-University BochumGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuhn GF (1977) Model for the interaural time difference in the azimuthal plane. J Acoust Soc Am 62:157–167Google Scholar
  19. Latimer W (1977) A comparative study of the songs and alarm calls of someParus species. Z Tierpsychol 45:414–433Google Scholar
  20. Lewis DB (1983) Directional cues for auditory localization. In: Lewis DB (ed) Bioacoustics, a comparative approach. Academic Press, New York London, pp 233–257Google Scholar
  21. Marler P (1955) Characteristics of some animal calls. Nature 176:6–8Google Scholar
  22. Marler P (1977) The structure of animal communication sounds. In: Bullock T (ed) Dahlem workshop on recognition of complex acoustic signals. Dahlem-Konferenzen, Abakon Verlagsgesellschaft, Berlin, pp 17–35Google Scholar
  23. Moiseff A, Konishi M (1981a) Neuronal and behavioural sensitivity to time differences in the owl. J Neurosci 1:40–48Google Scholar
  24. Moiseff A, Konishi M (1981b) The owl's interaural pathway is not involved in sound localization. J Comp Physiol 144:299–304Google Scholar
  25. Rosowski JJ, Saunders JC (1980) Sound transmission through the avian interaural pathways. J Comp Physiol 136:183–190Google Scholar
  26. Sachs MB, Woolf NK, Sinnot JM (1980) Response properties of neurons in the avian auditory system: Comparisons with mammalian homologues and consideration of neural encoding of complex stimuli. In: Popper AN, Fay RR (eds) Comparative studies of hearing in vertebrates. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 323–353Google Scholar
  27. Schwartzkopff J (1950) Beitrag zum Problem des Richtungshörens bei Vögeln. Z Vergl Physiol 32:319–327Google Scholar
  28. Shalter MD (1978) Localization of passerine seeet and mobbing calls by goshawks and pygmy owls. Z Tierpsychol 46:260–267Google Scholar
  29. Sullivan WE, Konishi M (1984) Segregation of stimulus phase and intensity coding in the cochlear nucleus of the barn owl. J Neurosci 4:1787–1799Google Scholar
  30. Takahashi T, Moiseff A, Konishi M (1984) Time and intensity cues are processed independently in the auditory system of the owl. J Neurosci 4:1781–1786Google Scholar
  31. Wiley RH, Richards DG (1982) Adaptations for acoustic communication in birds: Sound transmission and signal detection. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller EH (eds) Acoustic communication in birds: Production, perception and design features of sounds. Academic Press, New York London, pp 132–181Google Scholar
  32. Windt W (1985) Lokalisation von Kunst- und Naturlauten durch Kohlmeisen (Parus major). Thesis, Ruhr-University BochumGoogle Scholar
  33. Woodworth RS (1962) Experimental psychology. Rinehart & Winston, New York, pp 349–361Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. M. Klump
    • 1
  • W. Windt
    • 1
  • E. Curio
    • 1
  1. 1.Arbeitsgruppe für Verhaltensforschung, Fakultät für BiologieRuhr-Universität BochumBochum 1Germany

Personalised recommendations