Nearfield detection of dipole sources by the goldfish (Carassius auratus) and the mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi).

Surprisingly few behavioral data exist on dipole source detection by fish, despite the fact that dipole sources more closely approximate biologically relevant signals than do more nearly monopole sources such as loudspeakers, the stimulus used in nearly all fish auditory studies. In this study, dipole source detection is investigated for two fish species that differ in both their auditory and lateral line systems, the two systems capable of detecting dipole sources. Conditioned suppression of respiration in the goldfish and an unconditioned orienting response in the mottled sculpin were used to measure detection of a 6 mm diameter, sinusoidally vibrating sphere as a function of vibration frequency and source distance. Sound pressure thresholds for the goldfish were nearly independent of distance (15-60 mm) at 800 Hz, but increased with distance at 50 Hz, as they did for the mottled sculpin. The slopes of 50 Hz source level-distance functions, however, differed between the two species. Slopes for the goldfish were independent of distance, remaining at around 8 dB per distance doubling, which is near the 6 dB per distance doubling measured for sound pressure attenuation away from the source, but less than the 18 dB per distance doubling for incompressible flow, measured with an anemometer. Those for the mottled sculpin increased with increasing distance, approaching 18 dB per distance doubling. The nonlinear increase in source level necessary to reach threshold detection was quite similar to the nonlinear decrease in incompressible flow levels measured with the anemometer. Nonlinear increases with distance for 50 Hz sources near the trunk of the mottled sculpin were also similar to those near the head of the fish, where changes in source frequency had little effect on source level-distance functions. These results indicate that sound pressure detection by the ear is important for dipole detection by the goldfish, but that incompressible flow detection by the lateral line is more important for the mottled sculpin. They also indicate that fish such as the goldfish, with a pressure-sensitive swimbladder, are capable of detecting dipole sources at greater distances than are fish without such structures.

[1]  Ad. J. Kalmijn,et al.  Functional Evolution of Lateral Line and Inner Ear Sensory Systems , 1989 .

[2]  J. Montgomery.  Lateral Line Detection of Planktonic Prey , 1989 .

[3]  R. Fay,et al.  Source level discrimination by the lateral line system of the mottled sculpin, Cottus bairdi. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  E. Denton,et al.  Mechanical factors in the excitation of clupeid lateral lines , 1983, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[5]  Accepted September,et al.  Single unit activity in the peripheral lateral line system of the cichlid fish Sarotherodon niloticus L. , 1985 .

[6]  Ad. J. Kalmijn,et al.  Hydrodynamic and Acoustic Field Detection , 1988 .

[7]  R. Fay,et al.  Hot-film anemometry for measuring lateral line stimuli. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  J. Gray,et al.  Patterns of Excitation of the Lateral Line of the Ruffe , 1989, Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom.

[9]  J. Gray,et al.  The rigidity of fish and patterns of lateral line stimulation , 1982, Nature.

[10]  K. Frisch.  The Sense of Hearing in Fish , 1938, Nature.

[11]  R. Fay,et al.  The Ear as Part of the Octavolateralis System , 1989 .

[12]  R. Fay,et al.  Adaptation effects on amplitude modulation detection: Behavioral and neurophysiological assessment in the goldfish auditory system , 1985, Hearing Research.

[13]  Olav Sand,et al.  The Lateral Line and Sound Reception , 1981 .

[14]  Olav Sand,et al.  Selective and Reversible Blocking of the Lateral Line in Freshwater Fish , 1987 .

[15]  Richard R. Fay,et al.  Sound Detection and Processing by Fish: Critical Review and Major Research Questions (Part 1 of 2) , 1993 .

[16]  J. Gray,et al.  Mechanical Factors in the Excitation of the Lateral Lines of Fishes , 1988 .

[17]  S Coombs,et al.  Fibers innervating different parts of the lateral line system of an Antarctic notothenioid, Trematomus bernacchii, have similar frequency responses, despite large variation in the peripheral morphology. , 1992, Brain, behavior and evolution.

[18]  R. Fay,et al.  Acoustic response and tuning in saccular nerve fibers of the goldfish (Carassius auratus). , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  R. Fay,et al.  Modes of stimulation of the teleost ear. , 1975, The Journal of experimental biology.

[20]  J. Janssen,et al.  Localization of Substrate Vibrations by the Mottled Sculpin (Cottus bairdi) , 1990 .

[21]  Gerard G. Harris,et al.  Evidence that the Lateral‐Line Organ Responds to Near‐Field Displacements of Sound Sources in Water , 1962 .

[22]  P. Morse.  Vibration and Sound , 1949, Nature.

[23]  J. Gray,et al.  Interaction of sound pressure and particle acceleration in the excitation of the lateral-line neuromasts of sprats , 1984, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[24]  Sheryl Coombs,et al.  Neural mechanisms in sound detection and temporal summation , 1983, Hearing Research.

[25]  R. Fay.  Auditory Sensitivity Of The Goldfish Within The Near Acoustic Field , 1969 .

[26]  R. Fay,et al.  Hearing in Vertebrates: A Psychophysics Databook , 1988 .

[27]  S. Dijkgraaf.  THE FUNCTIONING and SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LATERAL‐LINE ORGANS , 1963, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[28]  R. Fay,et al.  Sound detection and processing by fish: critical review and major research questions. , 1993, Brain, behavior and evolution.

[29]  R L Puzdrowski,et al.  Peripheral distribution and central projections of the lateral-line nerves in goldfish, Carassius auratus. , 1989, Brain, behavior and evolution.