Advertisement

Psychophysical Studies of Auditory Masking in Marine Mammals: Key Concepts and New Directions

  • Colleen ReichmuthEmail author
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 730)

Abstract

In recent years, growing awareness of the potentially harmful effects of human-generated noise has led to concern over whether and how increasing ocean noise levels may adversely affect marine mammals by interfering with their detection of biologically important signals. The consequences of adding noise to an animal’s environment may be studied, in part, by identifying and understanding the ways in which noise alters normal or baseline hearing capabilities. The process of auditory masking occurs when the perception of a given signal is negatively influenced by the presence of another sound. Masking effects may be manifested through spectral or temporal interference from noise that decreases the audibility of the signal relative to conditions when the masking noise is not present. In addition to auditory-masking effects, it should be noted that other auditory effects as well as nonauditory behavioral, physiological, or anatomical changes may also occur as a result of noise exposure. Furthermore, marine mammals are not the only aquatic animals that may be vulnerable to these effects. However, the scope of this paper is limited to consideration of the masking effects of noise on the auditory perception of marine mammals. The specific aims are to 1) briefly review the key concepts and methods drawn from a psychophysical approach to the study of auditory masking, 2) examine how masking studies have been applied thus far to improve understanding of noise effects on marine mammals, and 3) consider how future laboratory studies with marine mammals may incorporate progressively more complex and realistic listening scenarios into psychophysical testing programs.

Keywords

Sound Pressure Level Marine Mammal Hearing Threshold Critical Ratio Masking Effect 
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.

References

  1. Branstetter BK, Finneran JJ (2008) Comodulation masking release in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). J Acoust Soc Am 124:25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Erbe C (2000) Detection of whale calls in noise: Performance comparison between a beluga whale, human listeners, and a neural network. J Acoust Soc Am 108:297–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Erbe C, Farmer DM (1998) Masked hearing thresholds of a beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) in icebreaker noise. Deep-Sea Res II Top Stud Oceanogr 45:1373–1388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fastl H, Zwicker E (2007) Psychoacoustics: Facts and models. Springer, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  5. Fechner GT (1860) Elemente der psychophysik (Elements of psychophysics). Holt Rinehart & Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Fletcher H (1940) Auditory patterns. Rev Mod Phys 12:47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gelfand SA (2001) Essentials of audiology, 2nd edn. Thieme, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Gerstein ER (1999) Psychoacoustic evaluations of the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostis). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  9. Holt MM, Schusterman RJ (2007) Spatial release from masking of aerial tones in pinnipeds. J Acoust Soc Am 121:1219–1225.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Johnson CS (1968) Masked tonal thresholds in the bottlenosed porpoise. J Acoust Soc Am 44:965–967.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kastelein RA, Wensween, PJ (2008) Effect of two levels of masking noise on the hearing threshold of a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) for a 4.0 kHz signal. Aquat Mamm 34:420–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kastelein RA, Wensween PJ, Hoek L, Au WWL, Terhune JM, de Jong CAF (2009) Critical ratios in harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) for tonal signals between 0.315 and 150 kHz in random Gaussian white noise. J Acoust Soc Am 126:1588–1597.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lemonds DW (1999) Auditory filter shapes in an Atlantic bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai’i, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
  14. Lohr B, Wright TF, Dooling RJ (2003) Detection and discrimination of natural calls in masking noise by birds: Estimating the active space of a signal. Anim Behav 65:763–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Richardson WJ, Greene CR Jr, Malme CI, Thomson DH (1995) Marine mammals and noise. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  16. Southall BL, Schusterman RJ, Kastak D (2000) Masking in three pinnipeds: Underwater, low frequency critical ratios. J Acoust Soc Am 114:1660–1666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Southall BL, Schusterman RJ, Kastak D (2003) Auditory masking in three pinnipeds: Aerial critical ratios and direct critical bandwidth measurements. J Acoust Soc Am 114:1660–1666.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Turnbull SD (1994) Changes in masked thresholds of a harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) associated with angular separation of signal and noise sources. Can J Zool 72:1863–1866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Yost WA (2000) Fundamentals of hearing: An introduction. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  20. Yost WA, Schofner WP (2009) Critical bands and critical ratios in animal psychoacoustics: An example using chinchilla data. J Acoust Soc Am 125:315–323.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Long Marine Laboratory, Institute of Marine SciencesUniversity of California Santa CruzSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations