Chapter 6 Anuran Acoustic Signal Perception in Noisy Environments
暂无分享,去创建一个
Mark A. Bee | M. A. Bee | J. Schwartz | Joshua J. Schwartz | Alejandro Vélez | Alejandro Vélez | M. Bee
[1] Mark A. Bee,et al. Do female frogs exploit inadvertent social information to locate breeding aggregations , 2007 .
[2] A. M. Mimpen,et al. Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. , 1979, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.
[3] Mario Penna,et al. Effect of natural and synthetic noise on evoked vocal responses in a frog of the temperate austral forest , 2005, Animal Behaviour.
[4] 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.
[5] Cynthia F. Moss,et al. Reflex Modification: A Tool for Assessing Basic Auditory Function in Anuran Amphibians , 1995 .
[6] E. C. Cmm,et al. on the Recognition of Speech, with , 2008 .
[7] D. Papaj,et al. Complex signal function: developing a framework of testable hypotheses , 2004, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.
[8] H. Gerhardt,et al. Acoustic interactions among male gray treefrogs, Hyla versicolor, in a chorus setting , 2002, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.
[9] 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.
[10] Krista Ann Larson,et al. Advertisement Call Complexity in Northern Leopard Frogs, Rana pipiens , 2004, Copeia.
[11] Peter M Narins,et al. Ultrasonic signalling by a Bornean frog , 2008, Biology Letters.
[12] M. Penna,et al. Susceptibility of evoked vocal responses to noise exposure in a frog of the temperate austral forest , 2007, Animal Behaviour.
[13] Peter M. Narins,et al. Effects of masking noise on evoked calling in the Puerto Rican coqui (Anura: Leptodactylidae) , 1982, Journal of comparative physiology.
[14] M. Littlejohn,et al. Call Discrimination by Female Frogs of the Hyla versicolor Complex , 1960 .
[15] Robert P. Carlyon,et al. Effects of Harmonicity and Regularity on the Perception of Sound Sources , 2008 .
[16] Josh H. McDermott. The cocktail party problem , 2009, Current Biology.
[17] William E. Wagner. Graded aggressive signals in Blanchard's cricket frog: vocal responses to opponent proximity and size , 1989, Animal Behaviour.
[18] D. Kroodsma,et al. Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds , 1997 .
[19] J. Schwartz,et al. Seeing to hear better: evidence for early audio-visual interactions in speech identification , 2004, Cognition.
[20] H. Carl Gerhardt,et al. Female green treefrogs (Hyla cinerea) do not selectively respond to signals with a harmonic structure in noise , 1990, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.
[21] D. Todt,et al. Acoustic communication in noise: regulation of call characteristics in a New World monkey , 2004, Journal of Experimental Biology.
[22] M. Ryan,et al. SPECIES RECOGNITION AND SEXUAL SELECTION AS A UNITARY PROBLEM IN ANIMAL COMMUNICATION , 1993, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.
[23] Mark A. Bee,et al. Experience-based plasticity of acoustically evoked aggression in a territorial frog , 2003, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.
[24] Frédéric Berthommier,et al. Masking release for consonant features in temporally fluctuating background noise , 2006, Hearing Research.
[25] Mark A. Bee,et al. Does common spatial origin promote the auditory grouping of temporally separated signal elements in grey treefrogs? , 2008, Animal Behaviour.
[26] Mark A. Bee,et al. Parallel female preferences for call duration in a diploid ancestor of an allotetraploid treefrog , 2008, Animal Behaviour.
[27] Mark A Bee,et al. Signal recognition by green treefrogs (Hyla cinerea) and Cope's gray treefrogs (Hyla chrysoscelis) in naturally fluctuating noise. , 2013, Journal of comparative psychology.
[28] R. R. Capranica,et al. Morphology and Physiology of the Auditory System , 1976 .
[29] Georg M. Klump. Studying Sound Localization in Frogs with Behavioral Methods , 1995 .
[30] M. Ryan,et al. Relative comparisons of call parameters enable auditory grouping in frogs. , 2011, Nature communications.
[31] Mark A. Bee,et al. Spatial release from masking in a free-field source identification task by gray treefrogs , 2012, Hearing Research.
[32] Albert S. Feng,et al. Frequency selectivity in the anuran auditory midbrain: Single unit responses to single and multiple tone stimulation , 1982, Journal of comparative physiology.
[33] A. M. Mimpen,et al. Speech-reception threshold for sentences as a function of age and noise level. , 1979, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[34] J. Doherty,et al. Acoustic communication in the gray treefrog,Hyla versicolor: evolutionary and neurobiological implications , 1988, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.
[35] A. Simmons. “To Ear is Human, to Frogive is Divine”: Bob Capranica’s legacy to auditory neuroethology , 2012, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.
[36] C. Moss,et al. Behavioral audiograms of the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) and the green tree frog (Hyla cinerea). , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[37] H. Carl Gerhardt,et al. Acoustic spectral preferences in two cryptic species of grey treefrogs: implications for mate choice and sensory mechanisms , 2005, Animal Behaviour.
[38] Albert S. Feng,et al. Free-field unmasking response characteristics of frog auditory nerve fibers: comparison with the responses of midbrain auditory neurons , 2001, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.
[39] H. Gerhardt,et al. Preferences based on spectral differences in acoustic signals in four species of treefrogs (Anura: Hylidae) , 2007, Journal of Experimental Biology.
[40] Mark A. Bee,et al. Multitasking males and multiplicative females: dynamic signalling and receiver preferences in Cope's grey treefrog , 2013, Animal Behaviour.
[41] M. Ryan,et al. Animal communication: Complex call production in the túngara frog , 2006, Nature.
[42] H. Brumm,et al. Acoustic Communication in Noise , 2005 .
[43] Stewart H. Hulse,et al. Auditory scene analysis in animal communication , 2002 .
[44] J. Schwartz,et al. Interference risk and the function of dynamic shifts in calling in the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor). , 2008, Journal of comparative psychology.
[45] R. R. Capranica,et al. The evoked vocal response of the bullfrog- A study of communication by sound , 1966 .
[46] Johannes Schul,et al. Pattern recognition and call preferences in treefrogs (Anura: Hylidae): a quantitative analysis using a no-choice paradigm , 2002, Animal Behaviour.
[47] H. Carl Gerhardt,et al. Hybridization in the Diploid-Tetraploid Treefrogs Hyla chrysoscelis and Hyla versicolor , 1994 .
[48] C. Darwin. Auditory grouping , 1997, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
[49] Mark A Bee,et al. Sound source perception in anuran amphibians , 2012, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.
[50] T. Griffiths,et al. What is an auditory object? , 2004, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.
[51] K. Wells,et al. The Behavioral Ecology of Anuran Communication , 2007 .
[52] M. Morris,et al. Female choice of large males in the treefrog Hyla ebraccata , 1991 .
[53] Michael J. Ryan,et al. How cricket frog females deal with a noisy world: habitat-related differences in auditory tuning , 2005 .
[54] Georg M. Klump,et al. Phonotactic responses and selectivity of barking treefrogs (Hyla gratiosa) to chorus sounds , 1988, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.
[55] R. Meldola. Sexual Selection , 1871, Nature.
[56] Mark A. Bee,et al. An experimental test of noise-dependent voice amplitude regulation in Cope’s grey treefrog, Hyla chrysoscelis , 2010, Animal Behaviour.
[57] Robert R. Capranica,et al. Neurobehavioral Correlates of Sound Communication in Anurans , 1983 .
[58] Robert R. Capranica,et al. Phonotaxis in the painted reed frog (Hyperolius marmoratus) , 1984, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.
[59] Israel Nelken,et al. Responses of auditory-cortex neurons to structural features of natural sounds , 1999, Nature.
[60] Charles Darwin,et al. Spatial Hearing and Perceiving Sources , 2008 .
[61] Joshua J. Schwartz. Male calling behavior, female discrimination and acoustic interference in the Neotropical treefrog Hyla microcephala under realistic acoustic conditions , 2004, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.
[62] R. Carlyon. How the brain separates sounds , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
[63] 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.
[64] An apparatus for the assessment of prepulse inhibition in the frog , 1996 .
[65] J. Bradbury,et al. Principles of animal communication, 2nd ed. , 2011 .
[66] M. Ryan,et al. Directional Patterns of Female Mate Choice and the Role of Sensory Biases , 1992, The American Naturalist.
[67] H. Carl Gerhardt,et al. Multiple messages in acoustic signals , 1992 .
[68] M. Ryan. The Tungara Frog: A Study in Sexual Selection and Communication , 1986 .
[69] Hans Slabbekoorn,et al. Soundscape orientation: a new field in need of sound investigation , 2008, Animal Behaviour.
[70] J. Schwartz. THE FUNCTION OF CALL ALTERNATION IN ANURAN AMPHIBIANS: A TEST OF THREE HYPOTHESES , 1987, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.
[71] Mark A. Bee,et al. Recognition and Localization of Acoustic Signals , 2007 .
[72] H. Gerhardt,et al. Mating behaviour and male mating success in the green treefrog , 1987, Animal Behaviour.
[73] P. Narins,et al. Bimodal signal requisite for agonistic behavior in a dart-poison frog, Epipedobates femoralis , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
[74] D. Blumstein. Acoustic Communication in Insects and Anurans : Common Problems and Diverse Solutions , 2002 .
[75] R. Fay. Sound Source Perception and Stream Segregation in NonhumanVertebrate Animals , 2008 .
[76] A. Feng,et al. Neural basis of hearing in real-world situations. , 2000, Annual review of psychology.
[77] Ryan C. Taylor,et al. Faux frogs: multimodal signalling and the value of robotics in animal behaviour , 2008, Animal Behaviour.
[78] G. Klump,et al. Use of non-arbitrary acoustic criteria in mate choice by female gray tree frogs , 1987, Nature.
[79] S. Shamma,et al. Behind the scenes of auditory perception , 2010, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.
[80] Visual Signaling in Anuran Amphibians , 2004 .
[81] Lori Wollerman. Background noise from a natural chorus alters female discrimination of male calls in a Neotropical frog , 2002, Animal Behaviour.
[82] Christopher G. Murphy. The cause of correlations between nightly numbers of male and female barking treefrogs (Hyla gratiosa) attending choruses , 2003 .
[83] Mark A Bee,et al. Spectral preferences and the role of spatial coherence in simultaneous integration in gray treefrogs (Hyla chrysoscelis). , 2010, Journal of comparative psychology.
[84] A S Feng,et al. Detection of auditory signals by frog inferior collicular neurons in the presence of spatially separated noise. , 1998, Journal of neurophysiology.
[85] G. Rose,et al. Auditory midbrain neurons that count , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.
[86] Edwin R. Lewis,et al. The Acoustic Periphery of Amphibians: Anatomy and Physiology , 1999 .
[87] Jakob Christensen-Dalsgaard,et al. Directional Hearing in Nonmammalian Tetrapods , 2005 .
[88] A. Feng,et al. Old world frog and bird vocalizations contain prominent ultrasonic harmonics. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[89] Peter M. Narins,et al. Ultrasonic communication in frogs , 2006, Nature.
[90] P. Narins,et al. ‘Silent’ signals: selective forces acting on ultrasonic communication systems in terrestrial vertebrates , 2008, Animal Behaviour.
[91] Aggressive Thresholds of Male Pacific Treefrogs for Advertisement Calls Vary with Amplitude of Neighbors' Calls , 2010 .
[92] A Elepfandt,et al. Hearing threshold and frequency discrimination in the purely aquatic frog Xenopus laevis (Pipidae): measurement by means of conditioning. , 2000, The Journal of experimental biology.
[93] G. Recanzone,et al. The biological basis of audition. , 2008, Annual review of psychology.
[94] S Buus,et al. Release from masking caused by envelope fluctuations. , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[95] Georg M. Klump,et al. Stimulus Familiarity Affects Perceptual Restoration in the European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) , 2009, PloS one.
[96] M. Théry,et al. The role of nocturnal vision in mate choice: females prefer conspicuous males in the European tree frog (Hyla arborea) , 2009, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.
[97] A. Feng,et al. Vocal acrobatics in a Chinese frog, Amolops tormotus , 2002, Naturwissenschaften.
[98] M. Ryan,et al. Interactions of Multisensory Components Perceptually Rescue Túngara Frog Mating Signals , 2013, Science.
[99] Walter Hödl,et al. Phonotactic approach pattern in the neotropical frog Allobates femoralis: A spatial and temporal analysis , 2009 .
[100] M. Ryan,et al. The vocal sac as a visual cue in anuran communication: an experimental analysis using video playback , 2004, Animal Behaviour.
[101] M. Ryan,et al. Sexual Differences in the Behavioral Response of Túngara Frogs, Physalaemus pustulosus, to Cues Associated with Increased Predation Risk , 2007 .
[102] Jakob Christensen-Dalsgaard,et al. Vertebrate pressure-gradient receivers , 2011, Hearing Research.
[103] A. Feng,et al. Ultrasonic communication in concave-eared torrent frogs (Amolops tormotus) , 2008, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.
[104] D. Bodnar. The separate and combined effects of harmonic structure, phase, and FM on female preferences in the barking treefrog (Hyla gratiosa) , 1996, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.
[105] Jakob Christensen-Dalsgaard,et al. Evolution of a sensory novelty: Tympanic ears and the associated neural processing , 2008, Brain Research Bulletin.
[106] M. Théry,et al. Hearing is not necessarily believing in nocturnal anurans , 2010, Biology Letters.
[107] Matthew J. Mason,et al. Pathways for Sound Transmission to the Inner Ear in Amphibians , 2007 .
[108] H. Brumm,et al. Anthropogenic Noise: Implications for Conservation , 2010 .
[109] R. F. Braaten,et al. Temporal Induction of Missing Birdsong Segments in European Starlings , 1999 .
[110] R. M. Warren. Perceptual Restoration of Missing Speech Sounds , 1970, Science.
[111] R. Lemon,et al. Vocal communication by the frog Eleutherodactylus martinicensis. , 1971, Canadian journal of zoology.
[112] Sebastiaan W. F. Meenderink,et al. Frequency matching of vocalizations to inner-ear sensitivity along an altitudinal gradient in the coqui frog , 2010, Biology Letters.
[113] 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.
[114] S. Telford,et al. The effect of chorus organization on mate localization in the Painted Reed frog (Hyperolius marmoratus) , 2004, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.
[115] Guy J. Brown,et al. Computational auditory scene analysis , 1994, Comput. Speech Lang..
[116] Mark A. Bee,et al. Auditory masking of anuran advertisement calls by road traffic noise , 2007, Animal Behaviour.
[117] Peter Heil,et al. A unifying basis of auditory thresholds based on temporal summation , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
[118] Andrea Megela Simmons,et al. The Sense of Hearing in Fishes and Amphibians , 1999 .
[119] H. Carl Gerhardt,et al. Spatially mediated release from auditory masking in an anuran amphibian , 1989, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.
[120] Georg M. Klump,et al. Masking of acoustic signals by the chorus background noise in the green tree frog: A limitation on mate choice , 1988, Animal Behaviour.
[121] G. Manley,et al. Evolution of the Vertebrate Auditory System , 2004, Springer Handbook of Auditory Research.
[122] J. Bird. Effects of a difference in fundamental frequency in separating two sentences. , 1997 .
[123] H. Carl Gerhardt,et al. Female mate choice in the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor) in three experimental environments , 2001, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.
[124] M. A. Bee,et al. Testing an auditory illusion in frogs: perceptual restoration or sensory bias? , 2010, Animal Behaviour.
[125] A. Feng,et al. Effects of Noise Bandwidth and Amplitude Modulation on Masking in Frog Auditory Midbrain Neurons , 2012, PloS one.
[126] 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.
[127] H. Gerhardt,et al. Individual voice recognition in a territorial frog (Rana catesbeiana) , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.
[128] Gary J. Rose,et al. Long-term temporal integration in the anuran auditory system , 1998, Nature Neuroscience.
[129] E. Lewis,et al. Do Male White-Lipped Frogs Use Seismic Signals for Intraspecific Communication? , 2001 .
[130] Inter-male spacing in choruses of the spring peeper, Pseudacris (Hyla) crucifer , 1989, Animal Behaviour.
[131] R. Márquez,et al. Intensity of female preference quantified through playback setpoints: call frequency versus call rate in midwife toads , 2008, Animal Behaviour.
[132] Michael J. Ryan,et al. The effects of time, space and spectrum on auditory grouping in túngara frogs , 2005, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.
[133] P. Narins,et al. Pure Ultrasonic Communication in an Endemic Bornean Frog , 2009, PloS one.
[134] Cynthia F. Moss,et al. Frequency selectivity of hearing in the green treefrog,Hyla cinerea , 1986, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.
[135] 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.
[136] A. Rand,et al. Inhibition of evoked calling of Dendrobates pumilio due to acoustic interference from cicada calling , 1993 .
[137] Joshua J. Schwartz,et al. Directionality of the Auditory System and Call Pattern Recognition During Acoustic Interference in the Gray Tree Frog , 1995 .
[138] J. Schwartz,et al. An Investigation of the Functional Significance of Responses of the Gray Treefrog (Hyla versicolor) to Chorus Noise , 2013 .
[139] M. Boeckle,et al. Communication in Noisy Environments i: Acoustic Signals of Staurois Latopalmatus Boulenger 1887 , 2009 .
[140] Daniel Pressnitzer,et al. The psychophysics and physiology of comodulation masking release , 2003, Experimental Brain Research.
[141] K. Wells,et al. THE INFLUENCE OF BACKGROUND NOISE ON THE BEHAVIOR OF A NEOTROPICAL TREEFROG, HYLA EBRACCATA , 1983 .
[142] Günter Ehret,et al. Time-critical integration of formants for perception of communication calls in mice , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
[143] Kevin R Crooks,et al. The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. , 2010, Trends in ecology & evolution.
[144] H. Gerhardt,et al. Effects of heterospecific call overlap on the phonotactic behaviour of grey treefrogs , 2006, Animal Behaviour.
[145] 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.
[146] Johannes Schul,et al. Phonotaxis in Hyla versicolor (Anura, Hylidae): the effect of absolute call amplitude , 2004, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.
[147] Peter M. Narins,et al. Ultrasonic frogs show hyperacute phonotaxis to female courtship calls , 2008, Nature.
[148] Mark A. Bee,et al. Neighbour–stranger discrimination by territorial male bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana): I. Acoustic basis , 2001, Animal Behaviour.
[149] P. Narins,et al. Cross-modal integration in a dart-poison frog. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
[150] M. Littlejohn,et al. Mating‐Call Sound Intensities of Anuran Amphibians , 1971 .
[151] Albertina Pimentel Lima,et al. Acoustic interference and recognition space within a complex assemblage of dendrobatid frogs , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[152] 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.
[153] H. Carl Gerhardt,et al. Phonotaxis in Female Frogs and Toads: Execution and Design of Experiments , 1995 .
[154] MASKING INTERFERENCE AND THE EVOLUTION OF THE ACOUSTIC COMMUNICATION SYSTEM IN THE AMAZONIAN DENDROBATID FROG ALLOBATES FEMORALIS , 2006, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.
[155] T. Lengagne,et al. Multiple signals and male spacing affect female preference at cocktail parties in treefrogs , 2010, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.
[156] Sebastiaan W. F. Meenderink,et al. Anatomy, Physiology, and Function of Auditory End-Organs in the Frog Inner Ear , 2007 .
[157] K. O’Connor,et al. Illusory Sound Perception in Macaque Monkeys , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.
[158] H. C. Gerhardt,et al. Call matching in the quacking frog (Crinia georgiana) , 2000, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.
[159] J. Schwartz,et al. FORMS OF CALL OVERLAP AND THEIR IMPACT ON ADVERTISEMENT CALL ATTRACTIVENESS TO FEMALES OF THE GRAY TREEFROG, HYLA VERSICOLOR , 2006 .
[160] S. G. Nooteboom,et al. Intonation and the perceptual separation of simultaneous voices , 1982 .
[161] Bernd Fritzsch,et al. The Evolution of the amphibian auditory system , 1988 .
[162] Douglas L. Jones,et al. Blind location and separation of callers in a natural chorus using a microphone array. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[163] Johannes Schul,et al. Sound Processing in Real-World Environments , 2007 .
[164] A. Pyron,et al. A large-scale phylogeny of Amphibia including over 2800 species, and a revised classification of extant frogs, salamanders, and caecilians. , 2011, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.
[165] E. Lewis,et al. Environmental Variables and the Fundamental Nature of Hearing , 2004 .
[166] H. Gerhardt,et al. Dynamic properties of the advertisement calls of gray tree frogs: patterns of variability and female choice , 1996 .
[167] 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.
[168] S. C. Humfeld,et al. Context-dependent plasticity of aggressive signalling in a dynamic social environment , 2009, Animal Behaviour.
[169] A. Simmons. Masking patterns in the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana). I: Behavioral effects. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[170] Peter M. Narins,et al. Coding of signals in noise by amphibian auditory nerve fibers , 1987, Hearing Research.
[171] A. Simmons,et al. Perception of mistuned harmonics in complex sounds by the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana). , 2000, Journal of comparative psychology.
[172] Ryan C. Taylor,et al. Multimodal signal variation in space and time: how important is matching a signal with its signaler? , 2011, Journal of Experimental Biology.
[173] J. Tautz,et al. Accessory pathway for sound transfer in a neotropical frog. , 1988, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
[174] Andrew J King,et al. Auditory Neuroscience: Filling in the Gaps , 2007, Current Biology.
[175] Alejandro Vélez,et al. Signal recognition by frogs in the presence of temporally fluctuating chorus-shaped noise , 2010, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.
[176] J. Simmons,et al. Spatial location influences vocal interactions in bullfrog choruses. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[177] The audibility of frog choruses to migrating birds , 1976, Animal Behaviour.
[178] Albert S Feng,et al. GABA Is Involved in Spatial Unmasking in the Frog Auditory Midbrain , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.
[179] 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.
[180] P F Seitz,et al. The use of visible speech cues for improving auditory detection of spoken sentences. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[181] Brandon Lentine,et al. Effect of anomalous pulse timing on call discrimination by females of the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor): behavioral correlates of neurobiology , 2010, Journal of Experimental Biology.
[182] Mario Penna,et al. Frog call intensities and sound propagation in the South American temperate forest region , 1998, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.
[183] Mark A. Bee,et al. Selective phonotaxis by male wood frogs (Rana sylvatica) to the sound of a chorus , 2007, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.
[184] M. Ryan. Sexual selection and communication in frogs. , 1991, Trends in ecology & evolution.
[185] Cory T. Miller,et al. Amodal completion of acoustic signals by a nonhuman primate , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.
[186] K. Linsenmair,et al. Frogs flee from the sound of fire , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.
[187] M. A. Bee,et al. Pulse-number discrimination by Cope's gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis) in modulated and unmodulated noise. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[188] M. A. Bee,et al. Sound source segregation in grey treefrogs: spatial release from masking by the sound of a chorus , 2007, Animal Behaviour.
[189] A N Popper,et al. Evolution of the ear and hearing: issues and questions. , 1997, Brain, behavior and evolution.
[190] A. Simmons,et al. Perception of complex sounds by the green treefrog, Hyla cinerea: envelope and fine-structure cues , 1993, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.
[191] 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.
[192] Mark A. Bee,et al. Spatial release from masking improves sound pattern discrimination along a biologically relevant pulse-rate continuum in gray treefrogs , 2013, Hearing Research.
[193] H. Gerhardt,et al. The neuroethology of frequency preferences in the spring peeper , 1998, Animal Behaviour.
[194] H. Gustafsson,et al. Masking of speech by amplitude-modulated noise , 1991 .
[195] H. Carl Gerhardt,et al. Conducting Playback Experiments and Interpreting their Results , 1992 .
[196] M. Ryan,et al. THE SENSORY BASIS OF SEXUAL SELECTION FOR COMPLEX CALLS IN THE TÚNGARA FROG, PHYSALAEMUS PUSTULOSUS (SEXUAL SELECTION FOR SENSORY EXPLOITATION) , 1990, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.
[197] R. Fay,et al. Auditory perception of sound sources , 2007 .
[198] A. Simmons. Selectivity for harmonic structure in complex sounds by the green treefrog (Hyla cinerea) , 1988, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.
[199] N. Bibikov,et al. Addition of noise enhances neural synchrony to amplitude-modulated sounds in the frog’s midbrain , 2002, Hearing Research.
[200] E. Lewis,et al. Do Frogs Communicate with Seismic Signals? , 1985, Science.
[201] Mark A. Bee,et al. Dip listening and the cocktail party problem in grey treefrogs: signal recognition in temporally fluctuating noise , 2011, Animal Behaviour.
[202] 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.
[203] P. Moler,et al. THE AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE , 2006 .
[204] J. Schwartz,et al. TESTS FOR CALL RESTORATION IN THE GRAY TREEFROG HYLA VERSICOLOR , 2011 .
[205] Peter Marler,et al. The perception of birdsong and an ecological concept of signal space. , 1990 .