Skip to main content
Log in

Schema vs. primitive perceptual grouping: the relative weighting of sequential vs. spatial cues during an auditory grouping task in frogs

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Comparative Physiology A Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Perceptually, grouping sounds based on their sources is critical for communication. This is especially true in túngara frog breeding aggregations, where multiple males produce overlapping calls that consist of an FM ‘whine’ followed by harmonic bursts called ‘chucks’. Phonotactic females use at least two cues to group whines and chucks: whine-chuck spatial separation and sequence. Spatial separation is a primitive cue, whereas sequence is schema-based, as chuck production is morphologically constrained to follow whines, meaning that males cannot produce the components simultaneously. When one cue is available, females perceptually group whines and chucks using relative comparisons: components with the smallest spatial separation or those closest to the natural sequence are more likely grouped. By simultaneously varying the temporal sequence and spatial separation of a single whine and two chucks, this study measured between-cue perceptual weighting during a specific grouping task. Results show that whine-chuck spatial separation is a stronger grouping cue than temporal sequence, as grouping is more likely for stimuli with smaller spatial separation and non-natural sequence than those with larger spatial separation and natural sequence. Compared to the schema-based whine-chuck sequence, we propose that spatial cues have less variance, potentially explaining their preferred use when grouping during directional behavioral responses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bee MA (2012) Sound source perception in anuran amphibians. Curr Opin Neurobiol 22(2):301–310

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bee MA (2015) Treefrogs as animal models for research on auditory scene analysis and the cocktail party problem. Int J Psychophysiol 95(2):216–237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bee MA, Christensen-Dalsgaard J (2016) Sound source localization and segregation with internally coupled ears: the treefrog model. Biol Cybern 110(4–5):271–290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bee MA, Klump GM (2004) Primitive auditory stream segregation: a neurophysiological study in the songbird forebrain. J Neurophysiol 92(2):1088–1104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bee MA, Micheyl C (2008) The cocktail party problem: what is it? How can it be solved? And why should animal behaviorists study it? J Comp Psychol 122(3):235–251

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bey C, McAdams S (2002) Schema-based processing in auditory scene analysis. Percept Psychophys 64(5):844–854

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (1998). Principles of animal communication. Sinauer Assoc. Inc., Sunderland

    Google Scholar 

  • Bregman AS (1990) Auditory scene analysis: the perceptual organization of sound. MIT, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bremen P, Middlebrooks JC (2013) Weighting of spatial and spectro-temporal cues for auditory scene analysis by human listeners. PLoS One 8(3):e59815

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bronkhorst AW (2000) The cocktail party phenomenon: a review of research on speech intelligibility in multiple-talker conditions. Acta Acust United Ac 86:117–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Culling JF, Summerfield Q (1995) Perceptual separation of concurrent speech sounds: absence of across-frequency grouping by common interaural delay. J Acoust Soc Am 98(2 Pt 1):785–797

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin CJ (2008) Listening to speech in the presence of other sounds. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 363(1493):1011–1021

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin CJ, Carlyon RP (1995) Auditory grouping. In: Moore BC (ed) Hearing. Academic, San Diego, pp 387–424

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin CJ, Hukin RW (1999) Auditory objects of attention: the role of interaural time differences. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25(3):617–629

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin CJ, Hukin RW (2000) Effectiveness of spatial cues, prosody, and talker characteristics in selective attention. J Acoust Soc Am 107(2):970–977

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch D (1979) Binaural integration of melodic patterns. Percept Psychophys 25(5):399–405

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Devergie A, Grimault N, Tillmann B, Berthommier F (2010) Effect of rhythmic attention on the segregation of interleaved melodies. J Acoust Soc Am 128(1):EL1–EL7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Drennan WR, Gatehouse S, Lever C (2003) Perceptual segregation of competing speech sounds: the role of spatial location. J Acoust Soc Am 114(4 Pt 1):2178–2189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Farris HE, Ryan MJ (2011) Relative comparisons of call parameters enable auditory grouping in frogs. Nat Commun. doi:10.1038NCOMMS1417

  • Farris HE, Taylor RC (2017) Mate searching animals as model systems for understanding perceptual grouping. In: Bee MA, Miller CT (eds) Psychological mechanisms in animal communication. Springer, New York, pp 89–118

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(3):181–188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Farris HE, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (2005) The effects of time, space and spectrum on auditory grouping in túngara frogs. J Comp Physiol A 191(12):1173–1183

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fay RR (2008) Sound source perception and stream segregation in nonhuman vertebrate Animals. In: Yost WA, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds) Auditory perception of sound sources. Springer, New York, pp 307–323

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt HC, Huber F (2002) Acoustic communication in insects and anurans, University of Chicago, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Goutte S, Kime NM, Argo TF, Ryan MJ (2010) Calling strategies of male túngara frogs in response to dynamic playback. Behaviour 147(1):65–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gridi-Papp M, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (2006) Animal communication: complex call production in the túngara frog. Nature 441(7089):38

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hahne A, Schroger E, Friederici AD (2002) Segregating early physical and syntactic processes in auditory sentence comprehension. Neuroreport 13(3):305–309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser MD (1996) The evolution of communication. MIT, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hukin RW, Darwin CJ (1995) Effects of contralateral presentation and of interaural time differences in segregating a harmonic from a vowel. J Acoust Soc Am 98:1380–1387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kidd G Jr, Mason CR, Best V (2014) The role of syntax in maintaining the integrity of streams of speech. J Acoust Soc Am 135(2):766–777

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith J, Harper DGC (2003) Animal signals. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Middlebrooks JC, Bremen P (2013) Spatial stream segregation by auditory cortical neurons. J Neurosci 33(27):10986–11001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Moore BCJ, Gockel H (2002) Factors influencing sequential stream segregation. Acta Acust United Ac 88(3):320–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore BC, Gockel HE (2012) Properties of auditory stream formation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 367(1591):919–931

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ponnath A, Hoke KL, Farris HE (2013) Stimulus change detection in phasic auditory units in the frog midbrain: frequency and ear specific adaptation. J Comp Physiol A 199(4):295–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rheinlaender J, Walkowiak W, Gerhardt HC (1981) Directional hearing in the green treefrog: a variable mechansim? Naturwissenschaften 67:430–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan MJ (1985) The túngara frog, a study in sexual selection and communication. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Lond 40(1):37–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan MJ, Rand AS (2003) Sexual selection in female perceptual space: how female túngara frogs perceive and respond to complex population variation in acoustic mating signals. Evol Int J org Evol 57(11):2608–2618

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster DB, Fay RR, Popper AN (1992) The evolutionary biology of hearing, Springer, New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Winer JA, Schreiner CE (2005). The inferior colliculus, Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Winkler I, Denham SL, Nelken I (2009) Modeling the auditory scene: predictive regularity representations and perceptual objects. Trends Cogn Sci 13(12):532–540

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

R. Taylor, R. Rosencrans, and N. Bazan generously provided advice and/or equipment for the project. The manuscript was improved by comments from two reviewers. HEF was supported by NIH Grant P20RR016816 (N. Bazan, PI). MJR was supported by NSF Grant (IOS 1120031; R. Taylor and R. Page Co-PIs). All behavioral procedures were licensed and approved by Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (IACUC permit: 2011-0825-2014-02).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hamilton E. Farris.

Ethics declarations

All behavioral procedures were licensed and approved by Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (IACUC permit: 2011-0825-2014-02).

Conflict of interest

We have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Farris, H.E., Ryan, M.J. Schema vs. primitive perceptual grouping: the relative weighting of sequential vs. spatial cues during an auditory grouping task in frogs. J Comp Physiol A 203, 175–182 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-017-1149-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-017-1149-9

Keywords

Navigation