Schema vs. primitive perceptual grouping: the relative weighting of sequential vs. spatial cues during an auditory grouping task in frogs

Perceptually, grouping sounds based on their sources is critical for communication. This is especially true in túngara frog breeding aggregations, where multiple males produce overlapping calls that consist of an FM ‘whine’ followed by harmonic bursts called ‘chucks’. Phonotactic females use at least two cues to group whines and chucks: whine-chuck spatial separation and sequence. Spatial separation is a primitive cue, whereas sequence is schema-based, as chuck production is morphologically constrained to follow whines, meaning that males cannot produce the components simultaneously. When one cue is available, females perceptually group whines and chucks using relative comparisons: components with the smallest spatial separation or those closest to the natural sequence are more likely grouped. By simultaneously varying the temporal sequence and spatial separation of a single whine and two chucks, this study measured between-cue perceptual weighting during a specific grouping task. Results show that whine-chuck spatial separation is a stronger grouping cue than temporal sequence, as grouping is more likely for stimuli with smaller spatial separation and non-natural sequence than those with larger spatial separation and natural sequence. Compared to the schema-based whine-chuck sequence, we propose that spatial cues have less variance, potentially explaining their preferred use when grouping during directional behavioral responses.

[1]  C. J. Darwin,et al.  Chapter 11 – Auditory Grouping , 1995 .

[2]  M. Ryan,et al.  Animal communication: Complex call production in the túngara frog , 2006, Nature.

[3]  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.

[4]  R. W. Hukin,et al.  Auditory objects of attention: the role of interaural time differences. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  J. C. Middlebrooks,et al.  Weighting of Spatial and Spectro-Temporal Cues for Auditory Scene Analysis by Human Listeners , 2013, PloS one.

[6]  Virginia Best,et al.  The role of syntax in maintaining the integrity of streams of speech. , 2014, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  Jakob Christensen-Dalsgaard,et al.  Sound source localization and segregation with internally coupled ears: the treefrog model , 2016, Biological Cybernetics.

[8]  Christoph E. Schreiner,et al.  The Inferior Colliculus , 2005 .

[9]  Stuart Gatehouse,et al.  Perceptual segregation of competing speech sounds: the role of spatial location. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Stephen McAdams,et al.  Schema-based processing in auditory scene analysis , 2002, Perception & psychophysics.

[11]  C J Darwin,et al.  Listening to speech in the presence of other sounds , 2008, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[12]  M. Ryan,et al.  SEXUAL SELECTION IN FEMALE PERCEPTUAL SPACE: HOW FEMALE TUNGARA FROGS PERCEIVE AND RESPOND TO COMPLEX POPULATION VARIATION IN ACOUSTIC MATING SIGNALS , 2003, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[13]  R. W. Hukin,et al.  Effectiveness of spatial cues, prosody, and talker characteristics in selective attention. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  H. C. Gerhardt,et al.  Directional hearing in the green treefrog: A variable mechanism? , 1981, Naturwissenschaften.

[15]  C. Darwin Auditory grouping , 1997, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[16]  Kenneth Webb,et al.  Evolution of Communication Simulation of Adaptive Behavior – Project Report , 2004 .

[17]  Frédéric Berthommier,et al.  Effect of rhythmic attention on the segregation of interleaved melodies. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  Jack W. Bradbury,et al.  Principles of Animal Communication , 1998 .

[19]  M. Ryan,et al.  Relative comparisons of call parameters enable auditory grouping in frogs. , 2011, Nature communications.

[20]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Properties of auditory stream formation , 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[21]  Ryan C. Taylor,et al.  Mate Searching Animals as Model Systems for Understanding Perceptual Grouping , 2016 .

[22]  D. Blumstein Acoustic Communication in Insects and Anurans : Common Problems and Diverse Solutions , 2002 .

[23]  Charles Darwin,et al.  Effects of contralateral presentation and of interaural time differences in segregating a harmonic from a vowel , 1995 .

[24]  D Deutsch,et al.  Binaural integration of melodic patterns , 1979, Perception & psychophysics.

[25]  A. Popper,et al.  The Evolutionary biology of hearing , 1992 .

[26]  J. C. Middlebrooks,et al.  Spatial Stream Segregation by Auditory Cortical Neurons , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[27]  M. Ryan,et al.  Vocal morphology of the Physalaemus pustulosus species group (Leptodactylidae): morphological response to sexual selection for complex calls , 1990 .

[28]  K. Hoke,et al.  Stimulus change detection in phasic auditory units in the frog midbrain: frequency and ear specific adaptation , 2013, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[29]  Michael J. Ryan,et al.  The effects of time, space and spectrum on auditory grouping in túngara frogs , 2005, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[30]  Goutte,et al.  Calling strategies of male túngara frogs in response to dynamic playback , 2010 .

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

[32]  I. Nelken,et al.  Modeling the auditory scene: predictive regularity representations and perceptual objects , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[33]  Albert S. Bregman,et al.  The Auditory Scene. (Book Reviews: Auditory Scene Analysis. The Perceptual Organization of Sound.) , 1990 .

[34]  J. Culling,et al.  Perceptual separation of concurrent speech sounds: absence of across-frequency grouping by common interaural delay. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  M. Ryan,et al.  The Effects of Spatially Separated Call Components on Phonotaxis in Túngara Frogs: Evidence for Auditory Grouping , 2002, Brain, Behavior and Evolution.

[36]  Mark A Bee,et al.  Treefrogs as animal models for research on auditory scene analysis and the cocktail party problem. , 2015, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[37]  A. Friederici,et al.  Segregating early physical and syntactic processes in auditory sentence comprehension , 2002, Neuroreport.

[38]  Georg M Klump,et al.  Primitive auditory stream segregation: a neurophysiological study in the songbird forebrain. , 2004, Journal of neurophysiology.

[39]  R. Fay Sound Source Perception and Stream Segregation in NonhumanVertebrate Animals , 2008 .

[40]  A. Arak The Túngara Frog: A Study in Sexual Selection and Communication, Michael J. Ryan. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London (1985), xv, +230. Price £27.95 hardback, £12.75 paperback , 1986 .