Journal of comparative physiology

, Volume 148, Issue 2, pp 237–244 | Cite as

Behavioral determination of frequency resolution in the ear of the cricket,Teleogryllus oceanicus

  • Günter Ehret
  • Anne J. M. Moffat
  • Jürgen Tautz


  1. 1.

    We used the flying phonotactic behavior of tethered female Australian field crickets,Teleogryllus oceanicus, to measure frequency filtering (determined from CR-bands, critical bands, and “effective” bandwidths) in the auditory system at frequencies of 4.5, 20, 40 and 70 kHz. Till now such measurements have been made only in vertebrates.

  2. 2.

    In CR-band determinations the spectrum level of the noise at the masked threshold increased monotonically with increasing tone level (Fig. 2). At 20, 40 and 70 kHz the regression lines had slopes very close to 1 indicating that, at least over the intensity range tested (5–20 dB above tone threshold), the masking process is linear. At 4.5 kHz, however, the slope of the regression line was only 0.56 showing a strong non-linearity in the masking process at this frequency. Such a nonlinearity has not been found in vertebrates.

  3. 3.

    At 4.5 kHz the three measures of filter bandwidths, CR-band, critical band and “effective” bandwidth, were not significantly different from each other, whereas at 40 kHz the “effective” bandwidth was significantly smaller than CR-band and critical band.

  4. 4.

    The width of the CR-band filter around 4.5 kHz increases with tone intensity, an effect which has not been observed in vertebrates.

  5. 5.

    Both CR-bands and critical bands indicate that the cricket auditory system is sharply tuned around 4.5 kHz, may show some tuning at 40 kHz, and is completely untuned at 20 and 70 kHz.

  6. 6.

    These results are discussed with respect to frequency tuning at the single unit level in crickets.



Auditory System Frequency Tuning Unit Level Frequency Filter Spectrum Level 
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.



critical ratio bands


sound intensity


sound pressure level


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ball EE, Hill KG (1978) Functional development of the auditory system of the cricket,Teleogryllus commodus. J Comp Physiol 127:131–138Google Scholar
  2. Bentley DR, Hoy RR (1972) Genetic control of the neuronal network generating cricket (Teleogryllus, Gryllus) song patterns. Anim Behav 20:478–492Google Scholar
  3. Bilger RC (1976) A revised critical band hypothesis. In: Hirsh SK, Eldredge IJ, Hirsh IJ, Silverman SR (eds) Hearing and Davis: Essays honoring Hallowell Davis. Washington University Press, Saint Louis, pp 191–198Google Scholar
  4. Boyan GS (1979) Directional responses to sound in the central nervous system of the cricketTeleogryllus commodus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae) II. A descending interneuron. J Comp Physiol 130:151–159Google Scholar
  5. Casaday GB, Hoy RR (1977) Auditory interneurons in the cricketTeleogryllus oceanicus: Physiological and anatomical properties. J Comp Physiol 121:1–13Google Scholar
  6. Dooling RJ, Saunders JC (1975) Hearing in the parakeet (Melopsittacus undulatus): Absolute thresholds, critical ratios, frequency difference limens, and vocalizations. J Comp Physiol Psychol 88:1–20Google Scholar
  7. Dooling RJ, Searcy MH (1979) The relation among critical ratios, critical bands, and intensity difference limens in the parakeet (Melopsittacus undulatus). Bull Psychon Soc 13:300–302Google Scholar
  8. Ehret G (1975) Masked auditory thresholds, critical ratios, and scales of the basilar membrane of the house mouse (Musmusculus). J Comp Physiol 103:329–341Google Scholar
  9. Ehret G (1976) Critical bands and filter characteristics in the ear of the house mouse (Mus musculus). Biol Cybern 24:35–42Google Scholar
  10. Ehret G, Capranica RR (1980) Masking patterns and filter characteristics of auditory nerve fibers in the green treefrog (Hyla cinerea), J Comp Physiol 141:1–12Google Scholar
  11. Esch H, Huber F, Wohlers DW (1980) Primary auditory neurons in crickets: Physiology and central projections. J Comp Physiol 137:27–38Google Scholar
  12. Evans EF (1975) Cochlear nerve and cochlear nucleus. In: Keidel WD, Neff WD (eds) Auditory system. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (Handbook of sensory physiology, vol V/2, pp 1–108)Google Scholar
  13. Fay RR (1974) Masking of tones by noise for the goldfish (Carassius auratus). J Comp Physiol Psychol 87:708–716Google Scholar
  14. Fletcher H (1940) Auditory patterns. Rev Mod Phys 12:47–65Google Scholar
  15. Greenwood DD (1961) Auditory masking and the critical band. J Acoust Soc Am 33:484–502Google Scholar
  16. Hill KG (1974) Carrier frequency as a factor in phonotactic behaviour of female crickets (Teleogryllus commodus). J Comp Physiol 93:7–18Google Scholar
  17. Hill KG, Boyan GS (1977) Sensitivity to frequency and direction of sound in the auditory system of crickets (Gryllidae). J Comp Physiol 121:79–97Google Scholar
  18. Hill KG, Loftus-Hills JJ, Gartside DF (1972) Pre-mating isolation between the Australien field cricketsTeleogryllus commodus andT. oceanicus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Aust J Zool 20:153–163Google Scholar
  19. Hutchings M, Lewis B (1981) Response properties of primary auditory fibers in the cricketTeleogryllus oceanicus (Le Guillon). J Comp Physiol 143:129–134Google Scholar
  20. Loftus-Hills JJ, Littlejohn MJ, Hill KG (1971) Auditory sensitivity of the cricketsTeleogryllus commodus andT. oceanicus. Nature 233:184–185Google Scholar
  21. Machmerth H, Theiss D, Schnitzler HU (1975) Konstruktion eines Luftschallgebers mit konstantem Frequenzgang im Bereich von 15 kHz-130 kHz. Acustica 34:81–85Google Scholar
  22. Margolis RH, Small AM (1975) The measurement of critical masking bands. J Speech Hear Res 18:571–587Google Scholar
  23. Moiseff A, Pollack GS, Hoy RR (1978) Steering response of crickets to sound and ultrasound: Mate attraction and predator avoidance. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 75:4052–4056Google Scholar
  24. Oldfield BP (1980) Accuracy of orientation of female cricketsTeleogryllus oceanicus (Gryllidae): Dependence on song spectrum. J Comp Physiol 141:93–99Google Scholar
  25. Paton JA, Capranica RR, Dragsten PR, Webb WW (1977) Physical basis for auditory frequency analysis in field crickets (Gryllidae). J Comp Physiol 119:221–240Google Scholar
  26. Patterson RD (1974) Auditory filter shape. J Acoust Soc Am 55:802–809Google Scholar
  27. Patterson RD (1976) Auditory filter shapes derived with noise stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am 59:640–654Google Scholar
  28. Pickels JO (1975) Normal critical bands in the cat. Acta Otolaryngol 80:245–254Google Scholar
  29. Pollack GS, Hoy RR (1979) Temporal patterns as a cue for species-specific calling song recognition in crickets. Science 204:429–432Google Scholar
  30. Pollack GS, Hoy RR (1981) Phonotaxis in flying crickets: Neural correlates. J Insect Physiol 27:41–45Google Scholar
  31. Pollack GS, Plourde N (1982) Directionality of acoustic orientation in flying crickets. J Comp Physiol 146:207–215Google Scholar
  32. Saunders JC, Denny RM, Bock GR (1978) Critical bands in the parakeet (Melopsittacus undulatus). J Comp Physiol Psychol 125:359–365Google Scholar
  33. Scharf B (1970) Critical bands. In: Tobias JV (ed) Foundations of modern auditory theory, vol 1. Academic Press. New York, London, pp 159–208Google Scholar
  34. Seaton WH, Trahiotis C (1975) Comparison of critical ratios and critical bands in the monaural chinchilla. J Acoust Soc Am 57:193–199Google Scholar
  35. Weber DL (1977) Growth of masking and the auditory filter. J Acoust Soc Am 62:424–429Google Scholar
  36. Zwicker E, Feldtkeller R (1967) Das Ohr als Nachrichtenempfänger. Hirzel, StuttgartGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Günter Ehret
    • 1
  • Anne J. M. Moffat
    • 1
  • Jürgen Tautz
    • 1
  1. 1.Fakultät für BiologieUniversität KonstanzKonstanzFederal Republic of Germany

Personalised recommendations