Simulated masking of right whale sounds by shipping noise: incorporating a model of the auditory periphery.

Many species of large, mysticete whales are known to produce low-frequency communication sounds. These low-frequency sounds are susceptible to communication masking by shipping noise, which also tends to be low frequency in nature. The size of these species makes behavioral assessment of auditory capabilities in controlled, captive environments nearly impossible, and field-based playback experiments are expensive and necessarily limited in scope. Hence, it is desirable to produce a masking model for these species that can aid in determining the potential effects of shipping and other anthropogenic noises on these protected animals. The aim of this study was to build a model that combines a sophisticated representation of the auditory periphery with a spectrogram-based decision stage to predict masking levels. The output of this model can then be combined with a habitat-appropriate propagation model to calculate the potential effects of noise on communication range. For this study, the model was tested on three common North Atlantic right whale communication sounds, both to demonstrate the method and to probe how shipping noise affects the detection of sounds with varying spectral and temporal characteristics.

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

[2]  B. Kollmeier,et al.  Modeling auditory processing of amplitude modulation. I. Detection and masking with narrow-band carriers. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Darlene R. Ketten,et al.  Functional analyses of whale ears: adaptations for underwater hearing , 1994, Proceedings of OCEANS'94.

[4]  R. Altes Detection, estimation, and classification with spectrograms , 1980 .

[5]  W. T. Peake,et al.  Sound-pressure measurements in the cochlear vestibule of human-cadaver ears. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Adam S Frankel,et al.  Quantifying Loss of Acoustic Communication Space for Right Whales in and around a U.S. National Marine Sanctuary , 2012, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[7]  Brian C. J. Moore,et al.  Frequency Analysis and Pitch Perception , 1993 .

[8]  D K Mellinger,et al.  Recognizing transient low-frequency whale sounds by spectrogram correlation. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  D. D. Greenwood A cochlear frequency-position function for several species--29 years later. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  P. E. Nachtigall,et al.  MARINE MAMMAL NOISE-EXPOSURE CRITERIA: INITIAL SCIENTIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS , 2008 .

[11]  C. Clark,et al.  Acoustic masking in marine ecosystems: intuitions, analysis, and implication , 2009 .

[12]  Joseph W. Hall,et al.  Detection in noise by spectro-temporal pattern analysis. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  J. Finneran,et al.  Auditory masking of a 10 kHz tone with environmental, comodulated, and Gaussian noise in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  C. Clark,et al.  Communication and Acoustic Behavior of Dolphins and Whales , 2000 .

[15]  W. Cleveland LOWESS: A Program for Smoothing Scatterplots by Robust Locally Weighted Regression , 1981 .

[16]  R. Dooling,et al.  Detection and discrimination of natural calls in masking noise by birds: estimating the active space of a signal , 2003, Animal Behaviour.

[17]  T Dau,et al.  A quantitative model of the "effective" signal processing in the auditory system. I. Model structure. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  Mark P. Johnson,et al.  Vessel noise effects on delphinid communication , 2009 .

[19]  P. Tyack,et al.  Responses of cetaceans to anthropogenic noise , 2007 .

[20]  H. Hake,et al.  On the Masking Pattern of a Simple Auditory Stimulus , 1950 .