Naturwissenschaften

, Volume 98, Issue 12, pp 1057–1061 | Cite as

Tympanal mechanics and neural responses in the ears of a noctuid moth

  • Hannah M. ter Hofstede
  • Holger R. Goerlitz
  • Fernando Montealegre-Z
  • Daniel Robert
  • Marc W. Holderied
Short Communication

Abstract

Ears evolved in many groups of moths to detect the echolocation calls of predatory bats. Although the neurophysiology of bat detection has been intensively studied in moths for decades, the relationship between sound-induced movement of the noctuid tympanic membrane and action potentials in the auditory sensory cells (A1 and A2) has received little attention. Using laser Doppler vibrometry, we measured the velocity and displacement of the tympanum in response to pure tone pulses for moths that were intact or prepared for neural recording. When recording from the auditory nerve, the displacement of the tympanum at the neural threshold remained constant across frequencies, whereas velocity varied with frequency. This suggests that the key biophysical parameter for triggering action potentials in the sensory cells of noctuid moths is tympanum displacement, not velocity. The validity of studies on the neurophysiology of moth hearing rests on the assumption that the dissection and recording procedures do not affect the biomechanics of the ear. There were no consistent differences in tympanal velocity or displacement when moths were intact or prepared for neural recordings for sound levels close to neural threshold, indicating that this and other neurophysiological studies provide good estimates of what intact moths hear at threshold.

Keywords

Moth auditory biomechanics Neurophysiology Auditory threshold Lepidoptera 

References

  1. Adams WB (1972) Mechanical tuning of the acoustic receptor of Prodenia eridania (Cramer) (Noctuidae). J Exp Biol 57(2):297–304Google Scholar
  2. Fenton MB (1990) The foraging behaviour and ecology of animal-eating bats. Can J Zool 68(3):411–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fullard JH (1998) The sensory coevolution of moths and bats. In: Hoy RR, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds) Comparative Hearing: Insects. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 279–326Google Scholar
  4. Miller LA, Surlykke A (2001) How some insects detect and avoid being eaten by bats: tactics and countertactics of prey and predator. BioScience 51(7):570–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Roeder KD (1966) Interneurons of the thoracic nerve cord activated by tympanic nerve fibres in noctuid moths. J Insect Physiol 12(10):1227–1244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Roeder KD, Treat AE (1957) Ultrasonic reception by the tympanic organ of noctuid moths. J Exp Zool 134(1):127–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Tougaard J (1998) Detection of short pure-tone stimuli in the noctuid ear: what are temporal integration and integration time all about? J Comp Physiol A 183(5):563–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Waters DA (2003) Bats and moths: what is there left to learn? Physiol Entomol 28(4):237–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Waters DA, Jones G (1996) The peripheral auditory characteristics of noctuid moths: responses to the search-phase echolocation calls of bats. J Exp Biol 199(4):847–856PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Windmill JFC, Fullard JH, Robert D (2007) Mechanics of a 'simple' ear: tympanal vibrations in noctuid moths. J Exp Biol 210(15):2637–2648PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Yack JE (2004) The structure and function of auditory chordotonal organs in insects. Microsc Res Tech 63(6):315–337PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hannah M. ter Hofstede
    • 1
    • 2
  • Holger R. Goerlitz
    • 1
  • Fernando Montealegre-Z
    • 1
  • Daniel Robert
    • 1
  • Marc W. Holderied
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations