Journal of Comparative Physiology A

, Volume 190, Issue 7, pp 515–521 | Cite as

Object classification by echolocation in nectar feeding bats: size-independent generalization of shape

  • D. von Helversen
Original Paper

Abstract

The nectar-feeding bat Glossophaga can be trained to discriminate two hollow forms, a hollow hemisphere and a paraboloid with the same diameter and depth, in total darkness. During training a saturation level of about 85–90% correct choices or more can be reached within 50–100 visits. To investigate generalization abilities, the bats were tested with pairs of the same shape but of different size. Although no reward was offered, they preferred the hollow sphere (30 mm and 50 mm diameter, but not 18 mm) over the corresponding paraboloids. Thus, the bats were able to generalize some features of the rewarded form and detect them in forms of the same shape but different size. This transposition is remarkable, since the bats could not use absolute spectral characters, but had to pay attention to size-independent features common to hollow hemispheres. Possible cues are the variation of echoes in dependence of different angles of calling direction (constant in spheres, changing with position in paraboloids) and/or the “timbre” of the echoes, i.e. their spectral pattern independent of their absolute pitch

Keywords

Echo-acoustic object recognition Generalisation Glossophaga Size-independence Spectral structure 

References

  1. Braaten RF, Hulse SH (1991) A songbird, the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), shows perceptual constancy for acoustic spectral structure. J Comp Psychol 105:222–231Google Scholar
  2. Braaten RF, Hulse SH, Page SC (1990) Discrimination and classification of rising and nonrising pitch patterns by the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Anim Learn Behav 18:352–364Google Scholar
  3. Bradbury J (1970) Target discrimination by the echolocating bat Vampyrum spectrum. J Exp Zool 173:23–46Google Scholar
  4. D’Amato MR (1988) A search for tonal pattern perception in cebus monkeys: why monkeys can’t hum a tone. Music Percept 5:453–480Google Scholar
  5. Güttinger HR, Turner T, Dobmeyer S, Nicolai J (2002) Melodiewahrnehmung und Wiedergabe beim Gimpel: Untersuchungen an liederpfeifenden und Kanariengesang imitierenden Gimpeln (Pyrrhula pyrrhula). J Ornithol 143:303–318Google Scholar
  6. Habersetzer J, Vogler B (1983) Discrimination of surface-structured targets by the echolocating bat Myotis myotis during flight. J Comp Physiol A 152:275–282Google Scholar
  7. Helversen D von, Helversen O von (1999) Acoustic guide in bat pollinated flower. Nature 398:759–760Google Scholar
  8. Helversen D von, Helversen O von (2003) Object recognition by echolocation: a nectar feeding bat exploiting the flowers of a rain forest vine. J Comp Physiol A 189:327–336Google Scholar
  9. Helversen D von, Fehn U, Helversen O von (2002) Discrimination of rotary hollow bodies by echolocation in the nectar-feeding bat Glossophaga soricina. Zoology 105:95 (Animal Meeting of the DZG, Halle)Google Scholar
  10. Helversen D von, Holderied M, Helversen O von (2003) Echoes of bat-pollinated bell-shaped flowers: conspicuous for nectar-feeding bats? J Exp Biol 206:1025–1034Google Scholar
  11. Hulse SH, Cynx J (1985) Relative pitch perception is constrained by absolute pitch in songbirds (Mimus, Molothrus, and Sturnus). J Comp Psychol 99:176–196Google Scholar
  12. Hulse SH, Cynx J (1986) Interval and contour in serial pitch perception by a passerine bird, the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). J Comp Psychol 100:215–228Google Scholar
  13. Hulse SH, Page SC, Braaten RF (1990) Integrative approach to auditory perception by songbirds. In: Stebbins WC, Berkley MA (eds) Comparative perception: complex signals. Wiley, New York, pp 3–34Google Scholar
  14. May B, Moody DB, Stebbins WC (1989) Categorial perception of conspecific communication sound by Japanese macaques, Macaca fuscata. J Acoust Soc Am 85:837–847Google Scholar
  15. Moss CF, Surlykke A (2001) Auditory scene analysis by echolocation in bats. J Acoust Soc Am 110:2207–2226Google Scholar
  16. Ralston JV, Herman LM (1995) Perception and generalization of frequency contours by a bottle-nosed dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). J Comp Psychol 109:268–277Google Scholar
  17. Schmidt S (1992) Perception of structured phantom targets in the echolocating bat, Megaderma lyra. J Acoust Soc Am 91:2203–2223Google Scholar
  18. Schmidt S (1995a) Psychoacoustic studies in bats. In: Klump GM, Dooling RJ, Fay RR, Stebbins WC (eds) Methods in comparative psychoacoustics. Birkhäuser, Zürich, pp 123–134Google Scholar
  19. Schmidt S (1995b) The psychophysics of hearing by bats. In: Possamai C-A (ed) Fechner day 95, Proc 11th Annual Meeting Intern Soc Psychophysics, Cassis, France, pp 91–96Google Scholar
  20. Simmons JA, Lavender WA, Lavender BA, Doroshow CA, Kiefer SW, Livingston R, Scallet AC (1974) Target structure and echo spectral discrimination by echolocating bats. Science 186:1130–1132Google Scholar
  21. Wright AA, Rivera JJ, Hulse SH, Shyan M, Neiworth JJ (2000) Music perception and octave generalization in rhesus monkeys. J Exp Psychol 129:291–307Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. von Helversen
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Zoology IIUniversity of ErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations