Finding Your Mate at a Cocktail Party: Frequency Separation Promotes Auditory Stream Segregation of Concurrent Voices in Multi-Species Frog Choruses

Vocal communication in crowded social environments is a difficult problem for both humans and nonhuman animals. Yet many important social behaviors require listeners to detect, recognize, and discriminate among signals in a complex acoustic milieu comprising the overlapping signals of multiple individuals, often of multiple species. Humans exploit a relatively small number of acoustic cues to segregate overlapping voices (as well as other mixtures of concurrent sounds, like polyphonic music). By comparison, we know little about how nonhuman animals are adapted to solve similar communication problems. One important cue enabling source segregation in human speech communication is that of frequency separation between concurrent voices: differences in frequency promote perceptual segregation of overlapping voices into separate “auditory streams” that can be followed through time. In this study, we show that frequency separation (ΔF) also enables frogs to segregate concurrent vocalizations, such as those routinely encountered in mixed-species breeding choruses. We presented female gray treefrogs (Hyla chrysoscelis) with a pulsed target signal (simulating an attractive conspecific call) in the presence of a continuous stream of distractor pulses (simulating an overlapping, unattractive heterospecific call). When the ΔF between target and distractor was small (e.g., ≤3 semitones), females exhibited low levels of responsiveness, indicating a failure to recognize the target as an attractive signal when the distractor had a similar frequency. Subjects became increasingly more responsive to the target, as indicated by shorter latencies for phonotaxis, as the ΔF between target and distractor increased (e.g., ΔF = 6–12 semitones). These results support the conclusion that gray treefrogs, like humans, can exploit frequency separation as a perceptual cue to segregate concurrent voices in noisy social environments. The ability of these frogs to segregate concurrent voices based on frequency separation may involve ancient hearing mechanisms for source segregation shared with humans and other vertebrates.

[1]  F. Cook "The Frogs and Toads of North America: A Comprehensive Guide to Their Identification, Behavior, and Calls" by Lang Elliott, Carl Gerhardt, and Carlos Davidson. 2009. [book review] , 2009 .

[2]  R. Carlyon How the brain separates sounds , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[3]  J. Ewert Advances in vertebrate neuroethology , 1982, Trends in Neurosciences.

[4]  Peter M. Narins,et al.  Hearing and Sound Communication in Amphibians , 2010 .

[5]  H. Carl Gerhardt,et al.  Female mate choice in the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor) in three experimental environments , 2001, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[6]  Richard R Fay,et al.  Auditory stream segregation in goldfish (Carassius auratus) , 1998, Hearing Research.

[7]  R. Fay,et al.  Evolution of hearing in vertebrates: the inner ears and processing , 2000, Hearing Research.

[8]  Gary J. Rose,et al.  Long-term temporal integration in the anuran auditory system , 1998, Nature Neuroscience.

[9]  G. Rose,et al.  Auditory midbrain neurons that count , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[10]  No Value Proceedings of the 14th international congress of phonetic sciences , 2000 .

[11]  J. Rauschecker,et al.  Perceptual Organization of Tone Sequences in the Auditory Cortex of Awake Macaques , 2005, Neuron.

[12]  M. A. Bee,et al.  Neural adaptation to tone sequences in the songbird forebrain: patterns, determinants, and relation to the build-up of auditory streaming , 2010, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[13]  Mark A. Bee,et al.  Auditory Stream Segregation in the Songbird Forebrain: Effects of Time Intervals on Responses to Interleaved Tone Sequences , 2005, Brain, Behavior and Evolution.

[14]  Johannes Schul,et al.  Pattern recognition and call preferences in treefrogs (Anura: Hylidae): a quantitative analysis using a no-choice paradigm , 2002, Animal Behaviour.

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

[16]  Josh H. McDermott The cocktail party problem , 2009, Current Biology.

[17]  Krista Ann Larson,et al.  Advertisement Call Complexity in Northern Leopard Frogs, Rana pipiens , 2004, Copeia.

[18]  R. Fay,et al.  Forward masking and suppression in the midbrain of the southern grey treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis) , 1982, Journal of comparative physiology.

[19]  E. C. Cmm,et al.  on the Recognition of Speech, with , 2008 .

[20]  D. Pressnitzer,et al.  Perceptual Organization of Sound Begins in the Auditory Periphery , 2008, Current Biology.

[21]  Stewart H. Hulse,et al.  Auditory scene analysis in animal communication , 2002 .

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

[23]  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.

[24]  R Milner Charles Darwin: the last portrait. , 1995, Scientific American.

[25]  Akihiro Izumi,et al.  Auditory stream segregation in Japanese monkeys , 2002, Cognition.

[26]  M. Ryan,et al.  Patterns of advertisement call evolution in toads and chorus frogs , 1995, Animal Behaviour.

[27]  Mark A. Bee,et al.  Do female frogs exploit inadvertent social information to locate breeding aggregations , 2007 .

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

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

[30]  H. Carl Gerhardt,et al.  SPECIATION BY POLYPLOIDY IN TREEFROGS: MULTIPLE ORIGINS OF THE TETRAPLOID, HYLA VERSICOLOR , 1994, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[31]  C. M. Hillery Detection of amplitude-modulated tones by frogs: Implications for temporal processing mechanisms , 1984, Hearing Research.

[32]  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.

[33]  A N Popper,et al.  Evolution of the ear and hearing: issues and questions. , 1997, Brain, behavior and evolution.

[34]  Mitchell Steinschneider,et al.  Neural correlates of auditory stream segregation in primary auditory cortex of the awake monkey , 2001, Hearing Research.

[35]  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.

[36]  A neural and behavioral study of auditory habituation in the bullfrog,Rana catesbeiana , 1983, Journal of comparative physiology.

[37]  H. Carl Gerhardt,et al.  Female preference functions based on call duration in the gray tree frog (Hyla versicolor) , 2000 .

[38]  S. Shamma,et al.  Behind the scenes of auditory perception , 2010, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[39]  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.

[40]  C. M. Hillery,et al.  Seasonality of Two Midbrain Auditory Responses in the Treefrog, Hyla chrysoscelis , 1984 .

[41]  R. D. Howard,et al.  Individual variation in male vocal traits and female mating preferences in Bufo americanus , 1998, Animal Behaviour.

[42]  Andrew J Oxenham,et al.  Behavioral measures of auditory streaming in ferrets (Mustela putorius). , 2010, Journal of comparative psychology.

[43]  Bernd Fritzsch,et al.  The Evolution of the amphibian auditory system , 1988 .

[44]  Peter F. Assmann,et al.  FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCY AND THE INTELLIGIBILITY OF COMPETING VOICES , 1999 .

[45]  S. H. Hulse,et al.  Auditory scene analysis by European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris): perceptual segregation of tone sequences. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[46]  Robert R. Capranica,et al.  Neurobehavioral Correlates of Sound Communication in Anurans , 1983 .

[47]  H. Gerhardt,et al.  Effects of heterospecific call overlap on the phonotactic behaviour of grey treefrogs , 2006, Animal Behaviour.

[48]  J. Arezzo,et al.  Auditory stream segregation in monkey auditory cortex: effects of frequency separation, presentation rate, and tone duration. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[49]  A. Feng,et al.  Roles of the auditory midbrain and thalamus in selective phonotaxis in female gray treefrogs (Hyla versicolor) , 2003, Behavioural Brain Research.

[50]  Mark A. Bee,et al.  Parallel female preferences for call duration in a diploid ancestor of an allotetraploid treefrog , 2008, Animal Behaviour.

[51]  M. A. Bee,et al.  Assessing Acoustic Signal Variability and the Potential for Sexual Selection and Social Recognition in Boreal Chorus Frogs (Pseudacris maculata) , 2010 .

[52]  R. Fay,et al.  Auditory perception of sound sources , 2007 .

[53]  S. G. Nooteboom,et al.  Intonation and the perceptual separation of simultaneous voices , 1982 .

[54]  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.

[55]  Q. Summerfield Book Review: Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organization of Sound , 1992 .

[56]  J. Bird Effects of a difference in fundamental frequency in separating two sentences. , 1997 .