Auditory sensitivity and the frequency selectivity of auditory filters in the Carolina chickadee, Poecile carolinensis

Chickadees produce elaborate vocalizations, but their basic auditory capabilities remain unexplored. We used auditory brainstem responses to tone bursts to assess the auditory sensitivity of Carolina chickadees at frequencies from 0.5 to 8 kHz and the percentage of frequency selectivity (quality) of auditory filters at frequencies from 2 to 4 kHz. The high-frequency limit of sensitive hearing was relatively high in chickadees compared to other songbirds tested using the same method, while the low-frequency limit was similar among species. These results support a previously noted correlation across songbirds between the high-frequency limit of sensitive hearing and the maximum frequency of vocalizations. The frequency selectivity of auditory filters in chickadees increased with increasing frequency. Frequency selectivity was intermediate compared to other species at 2 and 3 kHz, and relatively high at 4 kHz. This pattern suggests that frequency selectivity is generally greatest within the frequency range of long-range communication signals, and maximum frequency selectivity may be greater in woodland species than in open habitat species. Greater frequency selectivity may have evolved for greater frequency resolution of vocal signals, which are relatively tonal in woodland species, or for better signal detection in noise. Finally, males had greater auditory sensitivity than females, whereas females had greater frequency selectivity than males. Greater frequency selectivity may enhance perception of the frequency difference

[2]  J. Lucas,et al.  Seasonal variation in avian auditory evoked responses to tones: a comparative analysis of Carolina chickadees, tufted titmice, and white-breasted nuthatches , 2007, Journal of Comparative Physiology.

[3]  Sarah M N Woolley,et al.  Response properties of single neurons in the zebra finch auditory midbrain: response patterns, frequency coding, intensity coding, and spike latencies. , 2004, Journal of neurophysiology.

[4]  Geoffrey A. Manley,et al.  Audiogram, body mass, and basilar papilla length: correlations in birds and predictions for extinct archosaurs , 2005, Naturwissenschaften.

[5]  G. Ritchison,et al.  ‘Chick-a-dee’ calls of Carolina chickadees convey information about degree of threat posed by avian predators , 2009, Animal Behaviour.

[6]  D. Mennill,et al.  Pitch shifts and song structure indicate male quality in the dawn chorus of black-capped chickadees , 2004, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[7]  M. Hultcrantz,et al.  Estrogen and hearing: a summary of recent investigations , 2006, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[8]  M. Ryan,et al.  Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the frog Physalaemus pustulosus , 1990, Nature.

[9]  G. A. Manley,et al.  Activity patterns of cochlear ganglion neurones in the starling , 1985, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[10]  Sarah M. N. Woolley,et al.  Hair cell regeneration and recovery of auditory thresholds following aminoglycoside ototoxicity in Bengalese finches , 2001, Hearing Research.

[11]  Excitation patterns in the starling cochlea: a population study of primary auditory afferents. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  James W. Hall.  Handbook of Auditory Evoked Responses , 1991 .

[13]  Peter M. Narins,et al.  Ultrasonic communication in frogs , 2006, Nature.

[14]  Geoffrey A. Manley,et al.  The Hearing Organ of Birds and Crocodilia , 2000 .

[15]  Brian R Glasberg,et al.  Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notched-noise data , 1990, Hearing Research.

[16]  J. Lucas,et al.  Vocally correlated seasonal auditory variation in the house sparrow (Passer domesticus) , 2009, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[17]  W James,et al.  New Handbook Of Auditory Evoked Responses >>>CLICK HERE<<< , 2007 .

[18]  J. Lucas,et al.  Coevolution of auditory sensitivity and temporal resolution with acoustic signal space in three songbirds , 2008, Animal Behaviour.

[19]  Peter Marler,et al.  The perception of birdsong and an ecological concept of signal space. , 1990 .

[20]  Frédéric E Theunissen,et al.  Functional Groups in the Avian Auditory System , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[21]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Praat: doing phonetics by computer , 2003 .

[22]  R. Fay,et al.  Comparative Hearing: Birds and Reptiles , 2000, Springer Handbook of Auditory Research.

[23]  R. Wiley,et al.  Physical constraints on acoustic communication in the atmosphere: Implications for the evolution of animal vocalizations , 1978, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[24]  J. Lucas,et al.  Fecal corticosterone, body mass, and caching rates of Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis) from disturbed and undisturbed sites , 2006, Hormones and Behavior.

[25]  K. Okanoya,et al.  Hearing in the swamp sparrow, Melospiza georgiana, and the song sparrow, Melospiza melodia , 1988, Animal Behaviour.

[26]  K. Otter.  Ecology and Behavior of Chickadees and Titmice , 2007 .

[27]  R. Montgomerie,et al.  Achromatic plumage reflectance predicts reproductive success in male black-capped chickadees , 2005 .

[28]  Yehudah L. Werner,et al.  The Middle Ear of Reptiles and Birds , 2000 .

[29]  Daniel J. Mennill,et al.  Frequency matching, overlapping and movement behaviour in diurnal countersinging interactions of black-capped chickadees , 2008, Animal Behaviour.

[30]  J. Endler.  Signals, Signal Conditions, and the Direction of Evolution , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[31]  Time for analysis , 2002, Nature.

[32]  N. Harada,et al.  Presence of aromatase and estrogen receptor alpha in the inner ear of zebra finches , 2009, Hearing Research.

[33]  Micheal L. Dent,et al.  Hearing in Birds and Reptiles , 2000 .

[34]  M. Konishi.  Hearing, Single-Unit Analysis, and Vocalizations in Songbirds , 1969, Science.

[35]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer , 2002 .

[36]  R. Dooling,et al.  Development of auditory sensitivity in budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus). , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[37]  D. Mahar,et al.  Discrimination of nonlinear frequency glides. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[38]  M. Konishi.  Comparative neurophysiological studies of hearing and vocalizations in songbirds , 1970, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Physiologie.

[39]  Amanda M. Lauer,et al.  Psychophysical evidence of damaged active processing mechanisms in Belgian Waterslager Canaries , 2009, Journal of Comparative Physiology.

[40]  H. Brumm,et al.  Acoustic Communication in Noise , 2005 .

[41]  Jeffrey R. Lucas,et al.  “Information” and the chick-a-dee call: Communicating with a complex vocal system , 2007 .

[42]  Sarah M. N. Woolley,et al.  High-Frequency Auditory Feedback Is Not Required for Adult Song Maintenance in Bengalese Finches , 1999, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[43]  Michael J. Ryan,et al.  How cricket frog females deal with a noisy world: habitat-related differences in auditory tuning , 2005 .

[44]  R. Dooling,et al.  Auditory brainstem responses in the Eastern Screech Owl: an estimate of auditory thresholds. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[45]  N Suga,et al.  Sharpening of frequency tuning by inhibition in the thalamic auditory nucleus of the mustached bat. , 1997, Journal of neurophysiology.

[46]  Kenneth S. Henry,et al.  Habitat-related differences in the frequency selectivity of auditory filters in songbirds , 2010 .

[47]  U LANGEMANN,et al.  Auditory sensitivity in the great tit: perception of signals in the presence and absence of noise , 1998, Animal Behaviour.

[48]  J. Lucas,et al.  A comparative study of avian auditory brainstem responses: correlations with phylogeny and vocal complexity, and seasonal effects , 2002, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[49]  B. Moore,et al.  Suggested formulae for calculating auditory-filter bandwidths and excitation patterns. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[50]  Susan T. Smith.  Communication and other social behavior in Parus carolinensis , 1972 .

[51]  E. Rubel,et al.  Auditory perception following hair cell regeneration in European starling (Sturnus vulgaris): frequency and temporal resolution. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[52]  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.

[53]  R. Dooling,et al.  Auditory brainstem responses in adult budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus). , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[54]  H. Seliger,et al.  Ecology of Colors of Firefly Bioluminescence , 1980, Science.

[55]  A. Leemans,et al.  Structural Changes between Seasons in the Songbird Auditory Forebrain , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[56]  J. P. Hailman,et al.  The organization of major vocalizations in the paridae , 1989 .

[57]  A. Bass,et al.  Steroid-Dependent Auditory Plasticity Leads to Adaptive Coupling of Sender and Receiver , 2004, Science.

[58]  E. Martins,et al.  Divergence of visual motion detection in diurnal geckos that inhabit bright and dark habitats , 2009 .

[59]  Brian C. J. Moore,et al.  Frequency Analysis and Pitch Perception , 1993 .

[60]  Masakazu Konishi,et al.  How the Owl Tracks Its Prey , 2012 .

[61]  A. Badyaev,et al.  HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS OF SONG CHARACTERISTICS IN PHYLLOSCOPUS AND HIPPOLAIS WARBLERS , 1997 .

[62]  G. Boncoraglio,et al.  Habitat structure and the evolution of bird song: a meta-analysis of the evidence for the acoustic adaptation hypothesis , 2007 .