Animal Sonar pp 495-499 | Cite as

Greater Horseshoe Bats Learn to Discriminate Simulated Echoes of Insects Fluttering with Different Wingbeat Rates

  • Gerhard von der Emde
Part of the NATO ASI Science book series (NSSA, volume 156)


If a cf-fm bat echolocates a fluttering insect, the cf-portion of the returning echo contains distinct amplitude and frequency modulations. A noteworthy feature of such an insect echo is the so called acoustical glint (Schnitzler et al. 1983), represented by a sudden amplitude peak and spectral broadening. A glint is produced each time an insect wing stands perpendicular to the impinging sound waves. Because there is usually one glint per wingbeat, the glint frequency encodes the wingbeat rate of the insect. In addition to information about wingbeat rate, the echoes of fluttering insects also contain information about the angular orientation of the insect, the insect’s size and other information characterizing the insect species (Kober, this conference).


Positive Stimulus Angular Orientation Insect Wing Behav Ecol High Frequency Stimulus 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bell GP, Fenton MB (1984) The use of Doppler-shifted echoes as a clutter rejection system: the echolocation and feeding behavior of Hipposideros ruber ( Chiroptera: Hipposideridae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 15: 109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Emde G vd, Schnitzler HU (1986) Fluttering target detection in Hipposiderid bats. J Comp Physiol A (in press)Google Scholar
  3. Gellermann LW (1933) Chance disorders of alternating stimuli in visual discrimination experiments. J Genet Psychol 42: 205–208Google Scholar
  4. Goldman LJ, Henson OW Jr (1977) Prey recognition and selection by the constant frequency bat, Pteronotus parnellii. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2: 411–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Schnitzler HU, Flieger E (1983) Detection of oscillating target movements by echolocation in the greater horseshoe bat. J Comp Physiol A 135: 385–392Google Scholar
  6. Schnitzler HU, Henson OW Jr (1980) Performance of airborne animal sonar systems: I. Microchiroptera. In: Busnel RG, Fish JF (eds) Animal Sonar Systems. Plenum Press New York, Nato advanced study institude series (A) 28: 109–181Google Scholar
  7. Schnitzler HU, Menne D, Kober R, Heblich K (1983) The acoustical image of fluttering insects in echolocating bats. In: Huber F, Markl H (eds) Neurophysiology and behavioral Physiology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York. pp 235–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Sotavalta O (1947) The flight tone (wing stroke frequency) of insects. Acta Ent Fenn 4: 5–117Google Scholar
  9. Trappe M (1982) Verhalten und Echoortung der Grossen Hufeisennase beim Insektenfang. Dissertation, University of TübingenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerhard von der Emde
    • 1
  1. 1.Lehrbereich ZoophysiologieUniversity of TübingenTübingenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations