The cephalopod receptor of particle motion was identified. In a previous study, it was suggested that statocysts served this function, but there was no direct supporting evidence, and epidermal hair cells had not been conclusively ruled out. Experiments on Octopus ocellatus were conducted using respiratory activity as an indicator of sound perception. Intact animals clearly responded to 141-Hz particle motion at particle accelerations below 1.3×10−3 m/s2, and the mean perception threshold at this frequency was approximately 6.0×10−4 m/s2. Specimens in which the statoliths had been surgically removed did not show any response for accelerations up to 3.9×10−3 m/s2 at 141 Hz, which was approximately 16 dB greater than the mean perception threshold at this frequency. Specimens that had undergone a control operation in which the statoliths remained intact showed positive responses at 2.8×10−3 m/s2 for the same frequency stimulus. This indicates that the statocyst, which is morphologically similar to the inner ear system in fish, is responsible for the observed responses to particle motion in O. ocellatus. This is the first direct evidence that cephalopods detect kinetic sound components using statocysts.
Key Wordscephalopod hearing octopus particle motion statocyst
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Sand O. The lateral line and sound reception. In: Tavolga WN, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds). Hearing and Sound Communication in Fishes. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 1981; 459–480.Google Scholar
- 2.Rogers PH, Cox M. Underwater sound as a biological stimulus. In: Atema J, Fay RR, Popper AN, Tavolga WN (eds). Sensory Biology of Aquatic Animals. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 1988; 131–149.Google Scholar
- 3.Coombs S, Janssen J, Montgomery J. Functional and evolutionary implications of peripheral diversity in lateral line systems. In: Webster DB, Fay RR, Popper AN (eds). The Evolutionary Biology of Hearing, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 1992; 267–294.Google Scholar
- 4.Karlsen HE. The inner ear is responsible for detection of infrasound in the perch (Perca fluviatilis). J. Exp. Biol. 1992; 171: 163–172.Google Scholar
- 6.Kalmijn AJ. Hydrodynamic and acoustic field detection. In: Atema J, Fay RR, Popper AN, Tavolga WN (eds). Sensory Biology of Aquatic Animals. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 1988; 83–130.Google Scholar
- 7.Popper AN, Rogers PH, Saidel WM, Cox M. Role of the fish ear in sound processing. In: Atema J, Fay RR, Popper AN, Tavolga WN (eds). Sensory Biology of Aquatic Animals. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 1988; 687–710.Google Scholar
- 12.Williamson R. Vibration sensitivity in the statocyst of the northern octopus, Eledone cirrosa. J. Exp. Biol. 1988; 134: 451–454.Google Scholar
- 18.Budelmann BU. Hearing in nonarthropod invertebrates. In: Webster DB, Fay RR, Popper AN (eds). The Evolutionary Biology of Hearing. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 1992; 141–155.Google Scholar
- 19.Anken RH, Rahmann H. Gravitational zoology: how animals use and cope with gravity. In: Horneck G, Baumstark-Khan C (eds). Astrobiology: The Quest for the Conditions of Life. Springer, Berlin. 2002; 314–332.Google Scholar
- 20.de Vries HI. Physical aspects of the sense organs. In: Butler JAV (ed.). Progress in Biophysics and Biophysical Chemistry. Pergamon Press, London. 1956; 208–264.Google Scholar
- 21.Maniwa Y. Attraction of bony fish, squid and crab by sound. In: Schuijf A, Hawkins AD (eds). Sound Reception in Fish. Elsevier, Amsterdam. 1976; 271–283.Google Scholar
- 23.Karlsen HE. Infrasound sensitivity in the plaice (Pleuronectes platessa). J. Exp. Biol. 1992; 171: 173–187.Google Scholar