Signal recognition by green treefrogs (Hyla cinerea) and Cope's gray treefrogs (Hyla chrysoscelis) in naturally fluctuating noise.

This study tested three hypotheses about the ability of female frogs to exploit temporal fluctuations in the level of background noise to overcome the problem of recognizing male advertisement calls in noisy breeding choruses. Phonotaxis tests with green treefrogs (Hyla cinerea) and Cope's gray treefrogs (Hyla chrysoscelis) were used to measure thresholds for recognizing calls in the presence of noise maskers with (a) no level fluctuations, (b) random fluctuations, or level fluctuations characteristic of (c) conspecific choruses and (d) heterospecific choruses. The dip-listening hypothesis predicted lower signal recognition thresholds in the presence of fluctuating maskers compared with nonfluctuating maskers. Support for the dip-listening hypothesis was weak; only Cope's gray treefrogs experienced dip listening and only in the presence of randomly fluctuating maskers. The natural soundscapes advantage hypothesis predicted lower recognition thresholds when level fluctuations resembled those of natural soundscapes compared with artificial fluctuations. This hypothesis was rejected. In noise backgrounds with natural fluctuations, the species-specific advantage hypothesis predicted lower recognition thresholds when fluctuations resembled species-specific patterns of conspecific soundscapes. No evidence was found to support this hypothesis. These results corroborate previous findings showing that Cope's gray treefrogs, but not green treefrogs, experience dip listening under some noise conditions. Together, the results suggest level fluctuations in the soundscape of natural breeding choruses may present few dip-listening opportunities. The findings of this study provide little support for the hypothesis that receivers are adapted to exploit level fluctuations of natural soundscapes in recognizing communication signals.

[1]  H. Carl Gerhardt,et al.  Sound pressure levels and radiation patterns of the vocalizations of some North American frogs and toads , 1975, Journal of comparative physiology.

[2]  M. A. Bee,et al.  The cocktail party problem: what is it? How can it be solved? And why should animal behaviorists study it? , 2008, Journal of comparative psychology.

[3]  M. A. Bee,et al.  Sound source segregation in grey treefrogs: spatial release from masking by the sound of a chorus , 2007, Animal Behaviour.

[4]  B J Kwon,et al.  Consonant identification under maskers with sinusoidal modulation: masking release or modulation interference? , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  Mark A. Bee,et al.  Does common spatial origin promote the auditory grouping of temporally separated signal elements in grey treefrogs? , 2008, Animal Behaviour.

[6]  REPRODUCTIVE CHARACTER DISPLACEMENT IN THE ACOUSTIC , 2003 .

[7]  K. K. Jensen,et al.  Comodulation detection differences in the hooded crow (Corvus corone cornix), with direct comparison to human subjects. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  Cory T. Miller,et al.  Receiver psychology turns 20: is it time for a broader approach? , 2012, Animal Behaviour.

[9]  R. Fay Signal-to-noise ratio for source determination and for a comodulated masker in goldfish, Carassius auratus. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Mark A. Bee,et al.  Dip listening and the cocktail party problem in grey treefrogs: signal recognition in temporally fluctuating noise , 2011, Animal Behaviour.

[11]  M. A. Bee,et al.  Dip listening or modulation masking? Call recognition by green treefrogs (Hyla cinerea) in temporally fluctuating noise , 2012, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[12]  Johannes Schul,et al.  Phonotaxis to male’s calls embedded within a chorus by female gray treefrogs, Hyla versicolor , 2010, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[13]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  J. Schul,et al.  Non-parallel coevolution of sender and receiver in the acoustic communication system of treefrogs , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[15]  Donald E. Kroodsma,et al.  Suggested experimental designs for song playbacks , 1989, Animal Behaviour.

[16]  H. Brumm,et al.  Acoustic Communication in Noise , 2005 .

[17]  Martin Cooke,et al.  A glimpsing model of speech perception in noise. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  Michael S. Lewicki,et al.  Efficient auditory coding , 2006, Nature.

[19]  Todd M Freeberg,et al.  Acoustic interaction in animal groups: signaling in noisy and social contexts. , 2008, Journal of comparative psychology.

[20]  M. A. Bee,et al.  Detecting modulated signals in modulated noise: (II) neural thresholds in the songbird forebrain , 2007, The European journal of neuroscience.

[21]  G. Klump,et al.  Comodulation masking release in a songbird , 1995, Hearing Research.

[22]  Georg M. Klump,et al.  Phonotactic responses and selectivity of barking treefrogs (Hyla gratiosa) to chorus sounds , 1988, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[23]  J. T. Collins,et al.  A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians: Eastern and Central North America , 1975 .

[24]  G. Klump,et al.  Detecting modulated signals in modulated noise: (I) behavioural auditory thresholds in a songbird , 2007, The European journal of neuroscience.

[25]  H. Gerhardt Sound Pattern Recognition in Some North American Treefrogs (Anura: Hylidae): Implications for Mate Choice , 1982 .

[26]  Bernd Fritzsch,et al.  The Evolution of the amphibian auditory system , 1988 .

[27]  H. Carl Gerhardt,et al.  Acoustic communication in two groups of closely related treefrogs. , 2001 .

[28]  Mark A. Bee,et al.  Spatial release from masking in a free-field source identification task by gray treefrogs , 2012, Hearing Research.

[29]  Israel Nelken,et al.  Responses of auditory-cortex neurons to structural features of natural sounds , 1999, Nature.

[30]  A. Feng,et al.  Effects of Noise Bandwidth and Amplitude Modulation on Masking in Frog Auditory Midbrain Neurons , 2012, PloS one.

[31]  W. Bialek,et al.  Naturalistic stimuli increase the rate and efficiency of information transmission by primary auditory afferents , 1995, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[32]  Mark A Bee,et al.  Behavioral measures of signal recognition thresholds in frogs in the presence and absence of chorus-shaped noise. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  Mark A. Bee,et al.  Chapter 6 Anuran Acoustic Signal Perception in Noisy Environments , 2013 .

[34]  A. Nieder,et al.  Signal detection in amplitude‐modulated maskers. II. Processing in the songbird's auditory forebrain , 2001, The European journal of neuroscience.

[35]  Michael S. Lewicki,et al.  Efficient coding of natural sounds , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[36]  James J Finneran,et al.  Comodulation masking release in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[37]  Ulrike Langemann,et al.  Animal Communication Networks: Perception and acoustic communication networks , 2005 .

[38]  S. Hofer,et al.  Within- and Across-Channel Processing in Auditory Masking: A Physiological Study in the Songbird Forebrain , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[39]  Mark A Bee,et al.  Sound source perception in anuran amphibians , 2012, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[40]  Roy D Patterson,et al.  The mutual roles of temporal glimpsing and vocal characteristics in cocktail-party listening. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[41]  Mark A. Bee,et al.  Finding Your Mate at a Cocktail Party: Frequency Separation Promotes Auditory Stream Segregation of Concurrent Voices in Multi-Species Frog Choruses , 2011, PloS one.

[42]  Mark A Bee,et al.  Sound level discrimination by gray treefrogs in the presence and absence of chorus-shaped noise. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[43]  H. Gerhardt,et al.  Effects of heterospecific call overlap on the phonotactic behaviour of grey treefrogs , 2006, Animal Behaviour.

[44]  R. H. Wiley,et al.  Reverberations and Amplitude Fluctuations in the Propagation of Sound in a Forest: Implications for Animal Communication , 1980, The American Naturalist.

[45]  H. Gerhardt,et al.  REPRODUCTIVE CHARACTER DISPLACEMENT IN THE ACOUSTIC COMMUNICATION SYSTEM OF GREEN TREE FROGS (HYLA CINEREA) , 2003, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[46]  H. Carl Gerhardt,et al.  Phonotaxis in Female Frogs and Toads: Execution and Design of Experiments , 1995 .

[47]  P. K. McGregor,et al.  Animal Communication Networks: Behaviours specific to communication networks , 2005 .

[48]  H. Gustafsson,et al.  Masking of speech by amplitude-modulated noise , 1991 .

[49]  Stewart H. Hulse,et al.  Auditory scene analysis in animal communication , 2002 .

[50]  Ryan C. Taylor,et al.  Sexual selection in the squirrel treefrog Hyla squirella: the role of multimodal cue assessment in female choice , 2007, Animal Behaviour.

[51]  Johannes Schul,et al.  Pattern recognition and call preferences in treefrogs (Anura: Hylidae): a quantitative analysis using a no-choice paradigm , 2002, Animal Behaviour.

[52]  H. Carl Gerhardt,et al.  Spatially mediated release from auditory masking in an anuran amphibian , 1989, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[53]  Mark A. Bee,et al.  Do female frogs exploit inadvertent social information to locate breeding aggregations , 2007 .

[54]  Mark A. Bee,et al.  Anuran Acoustic Signal Production in Noisy Environments , 2013 .

[55]  Ruth Y. Litovsky,et al.  Spatial Release from Masking , 2012 .

[56]  Mark A. Bee,et al.  Finding a mate at a cocktail party: spatial release from masking improves acoustic mate recognition in grey treefrogs , 2008, Animal Behaviour.

[57]  A. Feng,et al.  Neural basis of sound pattern recognition in anurans , 1990, Progress in Neurobiology.

[58]  M. A. Bee,et al.  Assessing Acoustic Signal Variability and the Potential for Sexual Selection and Social Recognition in Boreal Chorus Frogs (Pseudacris maculata) , 2010 .

[59]  D. Kroodsma,et al.  Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds , 1997 .

[60]  P. Narins,et al.  AM representation in green treefrog auditory nerve fibers: neuroethological implications for pattern recognition and sound localization , 2004, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[61]  Frédéric Berthommier,et al.  Masking release for consonant features in temporally fluctuating background noise , 2006, Hearing Research.

[62]  J. Doherty,et al.  Acoustic communication in the gray treefrog,Hyla versicolor: evolutionary and neurobiological implications , 1988, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[63]  Mark A. Bee,et al.  Selective phonotaxis by male wood frogs (Rana sylvatica) to the sound of a chorus , 2007, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[64]  R. R. Capranica,et al.  Processing amplitude-modulated sounds by the auditory midbrain of two species of toads: matched temporal filters , 1984, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[65]  B. Moore,et al.  Comodulation masking release (CMR) as a function of masker bandwidth, modulator bandwidth, and signal duration. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[66]  S. Bacon,et al.  The effects of hearing loss and noise masking on the masking release for speech in temporally complex backgrounds. , 1998, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[67]  G. Klump,et al.  Signal detection in amplitude‐modulated maskers. I. Behavioural auditory thresholds in a songbird , 2001, The European journal of neuroscience.

[68]  Gary J. Rose,et al.  Function of the Amphibian Central Auditory System , 2007 .

[69]  B. Ronacher,et al.  Influence of amplitude modulated noise on the recognition of communication signals in the grasshopper Chorthippus biguttulus , 2003, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[70]  Alejandro Vélez,et al.  Signal recognition by frogs in the presence of temporally fluctuating chorus-shaped noise , 2010, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[71]  Anne Hsu,et al.  Tuning for spectro-temporal modulations as a mechanism for auditory discrimination of natural sounds , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[72]  Roger Conant,et al.  A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians , 1959 .

[73]  D. Grantham,et al.  Modulation masking: effects of modulation frequency, depth, and phase. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[74]  D. Kroodsma Using appropriate experimental designs for intended hypotheses in ‘song’ playbacks, with examples for testing effects of song repertoire sizes , 1990, Animal Behaviour.