Spatial release from masking in a free-field source identification task by gray treefrogs

Humans and other animals often communicate acoustically in noisy social groups, in which the background noise generated by other individuals can mask signals of interest. When listening to speech in the presence of speech-like noise, humans experience a release from auditory masking when target and masker are spatially separated. We investigated spatial release from masking (SRM) in a free-field call recognition task in Cope's gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis). In this species, reproduction requires that females successfully detect, recognize, and localize a conspecific male in the noisy social environment of a breeding chorus. Using no-choice phonotaxis assays, we measured females' signal recognition thresholds in response to a target signal (an advertisement call) in the presence and absence of chorus-shaped noise. Females experienced about 3 dB of masking release, compared with a co-localized condition, when the masker was displaced 90° in azimuth from the target. The magnitude of masking release was independent of the spectral composition of the target (carriers of 1.3 kHz, 2.6 kHz, or both). Our results indicate that frogs experience a modest degree of spatial unmasking when performing a call recognition task in the free-field, and suggest that variation in signal spectral content has small effects on both source identification and spatial unmasking. We discuss these results in the context of spatial unmasking in vertebrates and call recognition in frogs.

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

[2]  S. D. Turnbull Changes in masked thresholds of a harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) associated with angular separation of signal and noise sources , 1994 .

[3]  An apparatus for the assessment of prepulse inhibition in the frog , 1996 .

[4]  K. Saberi,et al.  Free-field release from masking. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  G. Fellers Aggression, territoriality, and mating behaviour in North American treefrogs , 1979, Animal Behaviour.

[6]  Alejandro Vélez,et al.  Signal recognition by frogs in the presence of temporally fluctuating chorus-shaped noise , 2010, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

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

[8]  J. Schwartz THE FUNCTION OF CALL ALTERNATION IN ANURAN AMPHIBIANS: A TEST OF THREE HYPOTHESES , 1987, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[9]  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.

[10]  Mark A. Bee,et al.  Recognition and Localization of Acoustic Signals , 2007 .

[11]  J. Ison,et al.  The effect of spatial separation of signal and noise on masking in the free field as a function of signal frequency and age in the mouse. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  Peter K. McGregor,et al.  Design of Playback Experiments: The Thornbridge Hall NATO ARW Consensus , 1992 .

[13]  Albert S Feng,et al.  GABA Is Involved in Spatial Unmasking in the Frog Auditory Midbrain , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.

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

[15]  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.

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

[17]  Anthony Arak,et al.  Sexual selection by male–male competition in natterjack toad choruses , 1983, Nature.

[18]  Jakob Christensen-Dalsgaard,et al.  Evolution of a sensory novelty: Tympanic ears and the associated neural processing , 2008, Brain Research Bulletin.

[19]  Mark A. Bee,et al.  Dip listening and the cocktail party problem in grey treefrogs: signal recognition in temporally fluctuating noise , 2011, Animal Behaviour.

[20]  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.

[21]  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.

[22]  Axel Michelsen,et al.  The role of pressure difference reception in the directional hearing of budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus) , 2006, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[23]  Joshua J. Schwartz,et al.  Directionality of the Auditory System and Call Pattern Recognition During Acoustic Interference in the Gray Tree Frog , 1995 .

[24]  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.

[25]  G. Manley,et al.  Evolution of the Vertebrate Auditory System , 2004, Springer Handbook of Auditory Research.

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

[27]  Robert R. Capranica,et al.  Accuracy of phonotaxis by the green treefrog (Hyla cinerea) , 1979, Journal of comparative physiology.

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

[29]  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.

[30]  M. A. Bee,et al.  Sound source segregation in grey treefrogs: spatial release from masking by the sound of a chorus , 2007, Animal Behaviour.

[31]  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.

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

[33]  Virginia Best,et al.  Spatial unmasking of birdsong in zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata) and budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus). , 2009, Journal of comparative psychology.

[34]  H. Carl Gerhardt,et al.  Mating call recognition in the green treefrog (Hyla cinerea): Importance of two frequency bands as a function of sound pressure level , 1981, Journal of comparative physiology.

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

[36]  Barbara G. Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Bottom-up and top-down influences on spatial unmasking , 2005 .

[37]  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.

[38]  Sebastiaan W. F. Meenderink,et al.  Anatomy, Physiology, and Function of Auditory End-Organs in the Frog Inner Ear , 2007 .

[39]  R Plomp,et al.  Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids. , 1978, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[40]  Jan W. H. Schnupp,et al.  On hearing with more than one ear: lessons from evolution , 2009, Nature Neuroscience.

[41]  H. Gerhardt,et al.  Significance of two frequency bands in long distance vocal communication in the green treefrog , 1976, Nature.

[42]  Lori Wollerman Background noise from a natural chorus alters female discrimination of male calls in a Neotropical frog , 2002, Animal Behaviour.

[43]  Jakob Christensen-Dalsgaard,et al.  Directional Hearing in Nonmammalian Tetrapods , 2005 .

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

[45]  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.

[46]  Richard R. Fay,et al.  The Evolutionary Biology of Hearing , 1992, Springer New York.

[47]  H. Carl Gerhardt,et al.  Phonotaxis in Female Frogs and Toads: Execution and Design of Experiments , 1995 .

[48]  R. R. Capranica,et al.  Correlation between auditory thalamic area evoked responses and species-specific call characteristics , 1987, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[49]  Albert S. Feng,et al.  Mating call selectivity in the thalamus and midbrain of the leopard frog (Rana p. pipiens): Single and multiunit analyses , 1983, Journal of comparative physiology.

[50]  R. R. Capranica,et al.  Correlation between auditory evoked responses in the thalamus and species-specific call characteristics , 1987, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

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

[52]  Johannes Schul,et al.  Sound Processing in Real-World Environments , 2007 .

[53]  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.

[54]  Donald E. Kroodsma,et al.  Pseudoreplication in playback experiments, revisited a decade later , 2001, Animal Behaviour.

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

[56]  Ruth Y Litovsky,et al.  Speech intelligibility and spatial release from masking in young children. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[57]  Johannes Schul,et al.  Phonotaxis in Hyla versicolor (Anura, Hylidae): the effect of absolute call amplitude , 2004, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[58]  R. Plomp Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids , 1977 .

[59]  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.

[60]  Peter M. Narins,et al.  Effects of masking noise on evoked calling in the Puerto Rican coqui (Anura: Leptodactylidae) , 1982, Journal of comparative physiology.

[61]  R. Dooling,et al.  Free-field binaural unmasking in budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus). , 1997, Behavioral neuroscience.

[62]  Mark A. Bee,et al.  Does common spatial origin promote the auditory grouping of temporally separated signal elements in grey treefrogs? , 2008, Animal Behaviour.

[63]  Albert S. Feng,et al.  Peripheral basis of sound localization in anurans. Acoustic properties of the frog's ear , 1981, Hearing Research.

[64]  Michael D. Good,et al.  Effects of Frequency on Free-Field Masking , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[65]  H. Carl Gerhardt,et al.  Directional hearing in the gray tree frog Hyla versicolor: Eardrum vibrations and phonotaxis , 1991, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

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

[67]  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.

[68]  LORI WOLLERMAN,et al.  Acoustic interference limits call detection in a Neotropical frogHyla ebraccata , 1999, Animal Behaviour.

[69]  Morten Buhl Jørgensen,et al.  Comparative studies of the biophysics of directional hearing in anurans , 1991, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[70]  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.

[71]  Marla M. Holt,et al.  Spatial release from masking of aerial tones in pinnipeds. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[72]  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.

[73]  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.

[74]  Robert R. Capranica,et al.  Vocal Response of the Bullfrog to Natural and Synthetic Mating Calls , 1966 .

[75]  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.

[76]  H. Gerhardt,et al.  Preferences based on spectral differences in acoustic signals in four species of treefrogs (Anura: Hylidae) , 2007, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[77]  R. R. Capranica,et al.  The evoked vocal response of the bullfrog- A study of communication by sound , 1966 .

[78]  Cynthia F. Moss,et al.  Reflex Modification: A Tool for Assessing Basic Auditory Function in Anuran Amphibians , 1995 .

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

[80]  R. Hoy The Evolution of Hearing in Insects as an Adaptation to Predation from Bats , 1992 .

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

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

[83]  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.

[84]  Jakob Christensen-Dalsgaard,et al.  Vertebrate pressure-gradient receivers , 2011, Hearing Research.

[85]  Mark A. Bee,et al.  Auditory masking of anuran advertisement calls by road traffic noise , 2007, Animal Behaviour.

[86]  H. Carl Gerhardt,et al.  Spatially mediated release from auditory masking in an anuran amphibian , 1989, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[87]  C. Mason,et al.  Release from masking due to spatial separation of sources in the identification of nonspeech auditory patterns. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.