Chapter 6 Anuran Acoustic Signal Perception in Noisy Environments

Choruses of acoustically signaling frogs and toads are among the most impressive acoustic spectacles known from the natural world. They are loud, raucous social environments that form for one purpose and one purpose only: sex. The loud sexual advertisement signals that males produce are often necessary and sufficient to elicit responses from reproductive females, and they also function in communicating with other males during interactions over calling sites and territories. Frogs listening in a chorus must detect, recognize, localize, and discriminate among competing signals amid high levels of biotic, and often abiotic, background noise. In essence, frogs must solve a biological analog of the human cocktail party problem. In this chapter, we describe the frog’s cocktail party problem in functional terms relevant to frog reproduction and communication. We then describe results from experimental studies, mostly of behavior, that elucidate how the frog auditory system goes about solving problems related to auditory masking and auditory scene analysis.

[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 .