Advertisement

Journal of Comparative Physiology A

, Volume 191, Issue 12, pp 1173–1183 | Cite as

The effects of time, space and spectrum on auditory grouping in túngara frogs

  • H. E. FarrisEmail author
  • A. Stanley Rand
  • Michael J. Ryan
Original Paper

Abstract

Male túngara frogs (Physalaemus pustulosus) produce complex calls consisting of two components, a ~350 ms FM sweep called the “whine” followed by up to seven ~40 ms harmonic bursts called “chucks”. In order to choose and locate a calling male, females attending to choruses must group call components into auditory streams to correctly assign calls to their sources. Previously we showed that spatial cues play a limited role in grouping: calls with normal spectra and temporal structure are grouped over wide angular separations (≤135°). In this study we again use phonotaxis to first test whether an alternative cue, the sequence of call components, plays a role in auditory grouping and second, whether grouping is mediated by peripheral or central mechanisms. We found that while grouping is not limited to the natural call sequence, it does vary with the relative onset times of the two calls. To test whether overlapping stimulation in the periphery is required for grouping, the whine and chuck were filtered to restrict their spectra to the sensitivity ranges of the amphibian and basilar papillae, respectively. For these dichotic-like stimuli, grouping still occurred (albeit only to 45° separation), suggesting that stream formation is mediated by central mechanisms.

Keywords

Cocktail party effect Auditory stream Auditory scene analysis Complex call Mate choice Chorus Phonotaxis Amphibian Frog Túngara Physalaemus pustulosus 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Rex Cocroft, Dennis McFadden, Carl Gerhardt, Walt Wilczynski and two anonymous reviewers for comments on the project and/or manuscript. Thanks to X. Bernal, F. V. Candioti, K. Lynch, K. Boul, J. Scarl, and S. Barrionuevo for help with data collection. This research was supported by NSF IBN 98 16564, and a Smithsonian Scholarly Studies Grant to MJR and ASR. HEF was supported by funds from the College of Natural Science, University of Texas at Austin. We thank the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute for the their hospitality and logistical support. The experiments comply with the NIH guidelines for animal care (pub. #86-23).

References

  1. Andersson MB (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  2. Beauvois MW, Meddis R (1996) Computer simulation of auditory stream segregation in alternating-tone sequences. J Acoust Soc Am 99:2270–2280CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bosch J, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (2002) Response to variation in chuck frequency by male and female túngara frogs. Herpetologica 58:95–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bregman AS (1990) Auditory scene analysis: the perceptual organization of sound. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Cherry EC (1953) Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and two ears. J Acoust Soc Am 25:975–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Darwin CJ, Carlyon RP (1995) Auditory grouping. In: Moore BCJ (ed) Hearing. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 387–424Google Scholar
  7. Delgutte B (1996) Physiological models for basic auditory percepts. In: Hawkins HL, McMullen TA, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds) Auditory computation. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 157–220Google Scholar
  8. Ehret G, Moffat AJM, Capranica RR (1983) Two-tone suppression in auditory nerve fibers of the green treefrog (Hyla cinerea). J Acoust Soc Am 73:2093–2095CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Farris HE, Hoy RR (2002) Two-tone suppression in the cricket Eunemobius carolinus (Gryllidae, Nemobiinae). J Acoust Soc Am 111:1475–1485CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Farris HE, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (2002) The effects of spatially separated call components on phonotaxis in túngara frogs: Evidence for auditory grouping. Brain Behav Evol 60:181–188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibson RM, Bradbury JW (1985) Sexual selection in lekking sage grouse: phenotypic correlates of male mating success. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 18:117–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greenfield MD, Rand AS (2000) Frogs have rules: selective attention algorithms regulate chorusing in Physalaemus pustulosus (Leptodactylidae). Ethology 106:331–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hebets EA (2005) Attention-altering signal interactions in the multimodal courtship display of the wolf spider Schizocosa uetzi. Behav Ecol 16:75–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hicks ML, Bacon SP (1995) Some factors influencing comodulation masking release and across-channel masking. J Acoust Soc Am 98:2504–2514CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kiang NY-S (1965) Discharge patterns of single fibers in the cat’s auditory nerve. Research monograph no. 35, The M. I. T. Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Kubovy M, Cutting JE, McGuire RM (1974) Hearing with the third ear: dichotic perception of melody with monaural familiarity cues. Science 186:272–274PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. MacNally RC, Weary DM, Lemon RE, Lefebvre L (1986) Species recognition by song in the veery (Catharus fuscescens: Aves). Ethology 71:125–139Google Scholar
  18. McGurk H, McDonald J (1976) Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature 264:746–748CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Mellinger DK, Mont-Reynaud BM (1996) Scene analysis. In: Hawkins HL, McMullen TA, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds) Auditory computation. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 271–331Google Scholar
  20. Narins PM, Capranica RR (1978) Communicative significance of the two-note call of the treefrog Eleutherodactylus coqui. J Comp Physiol 127:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Narins PM, Hodl W, Grabul DS (2003) Bimodal signal requisite for agonistic behavior in a dart-poison frog, Epipedobates femoralis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:577–580CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. van Noorden LPAS (1977) Minimum differences of level and frequency for perceptual fission of tone sequences ABAB. J Acoust Soc Am 61:1041–1045CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Rand AS, Ryan MJ (1981) The adaptive significance of a complex vocal repertoire in a neotropical frog. Ethology 57:209–214Google Scholar
  24. Ratcliffe L, Weisman RG (1986) Song sequence discrimination in the black-capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus). J Comp Psychol 100:361–367CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Richards DG (1981) Alerting and message components in songs of rufous-sided towhees. Behaviour 76:223–249Google Scholar
  26. Rose MM, Moore BCJ (2000) Effects of frequency and level on auditory stream segregation. J Acoust Soc Am 108:1209–1214CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Rosenthal GG, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (2004) The vocal sac as a visual cue in anuran communication: experimental analysis using video playback. Anim Behav 68:55–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ryan MJ (1980) Female mate choice in a neotropical frog. Science 209:523–525PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ryan MJ (1985) The túngara frog, a study in sexual selection and communication. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  30. Ryan MJ, Drewes RC (1990) Vocal morphology of the Physalaemus pustulosus species group (Leptodactylidae): morphological response to sexual selection for complex calls. Biol J Linn Soc 40:37–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ryan MJ, Fox JH, Wilczynski W, Rand AS (1990) Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Nature 343:66–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Ryan MJ, Keddy-Hector A (1992) Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am Nat 139:S4–S35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ryan MJ, Rand AS (1990) The sensory basis of sexual selection of complex calls in the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus (sexual selection for sensory exploitation). Evolution 44:305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ryan MJ, Rand AS (2003) Sexual selection and female preference space: how female túngara frogs perceive and respond to complex population variation in acoustic mating signals. Evolution 57:2608–2618PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Ryan MJ, Tuttle MD, Taft LK (1981) The costs and benefits of frog chorusing behavior. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 8:273–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schwartz JJ, Gerhardt HC (1995) Directionality of the auditory system and call pattern recognition during acoustic interference in the gray tree frog Hyla versicolor. Audit Neurosci 1:195–206Google Scholar
  37. Wilczynski W, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (1999) Female preferences for temporal order of call components in the túngara frog: a bayesian analysis. Anim Behav 58:841–851CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Wilczynski W, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (1995) The processing of spectral cues by the call analysis system of the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Anim Behav 49:911–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yost WA, Sheft S (1993) Auditory perception. In: Yost WA, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds) Human Psychophysics. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 193–236Google Scholar
  40. Zakon HH, Wilczynski W (1988) The physiology of the anuran VIIIth nerve. In: Fritzsch B, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W, Hetherington TE, Walkowiak W (eds) The evolution of the amphibian auditory system. Wiley, New York, pp 125–155Google Scholar
  41. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical Analysis. Simon and Schuster, New JerseyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. E. Farris
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • A. Stanley Rand
    • 3
  • Michael J. Ryan
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Section of Integrative Biology C0930University of TexasAustinUSA
  2. 2.Center for NeuroscienceLSUHSCNew OrleansUSA
  3. 3.Smithsonian Tropical Research InstituteBalboaPanama

Personalised recommendations