Diversity in noise-induced temporary hearing loss in otophysine fishes

Abstract

The effects of intense white noise (158 dB re 1 microPa for 12 and 24 h) on the hearing abilities of two otophysine fish species--the nonvocal goldfish Carassius auramus and the vocalizing catfish Pimelodus pictus--were investigated in relation to noise exposure duration. Hearing sensitivity was determined utilizing the auditory brainstem response (ABR) recording technique. Measurements in the frequency range between 0.2 and 4.0 kHz were conducted prior and directly after noise exposure as well as after 3, 7, and 14 days of recovery. Both species showed a significant loss of sensitivity (up to 26 dB in C. auratus and 32 dB in P. pictus) immediately after noise exposure, with the greatest hearing loss in the range of their most sensitive frequencies. Hearing loss differed between both species, and was more pronounced in the catfish. Exposure duration had no influence on hearing loss. Hearing thresholds of C. auratus recovered within three days, whereas those of P. pictus only returned to their initial values within 14 days after exposure in all but one frequency. The results indicate that hearing specialists are affected differently by noise exposure and that acoustic communication might be restricted in noisy habitats.

Hearing in Fishes under Noise Conditions

“…In contrast, all thresholds in P. costatus were masked by the 110-and 130-dB noise. Compared to the goldfish, catfish are more sensitive in the high frequency range (Ladich 1999;Amoser and Ladich 2003;Ladich and Bass 2003). Hence interspecific variance in baseline auditory sensitivity accounts for variance in the degree of masking.…”

The use of anesthesia during evoked potential audiometry in goldfish (Carassius auratus)

“…In the AEP technique, electrical activity is recorded from the surface of the head without surgical implantation of electrodes and stimulus evoked responses are measured by time-locked averaging (Jewett, 1970). The ease and rapidity of collecting AEP data have made this a popular technique for comparing hearing abilities across species (Kenyon et al, 1998), or assessing hearing damage as a result of noise (Scholik and Yan, 2002;Amoser and Ladich, 2003;Smith et al, 2004), exposure to toxins (Lu and Tomchick, 2002), or experimental manipulations of the sensory periphery (Yan, 1998;Yan and Curtsinger, 2000;Fletcher and Crawford, 2001;Ladich and Wysocki, 2003).…”

Chronic low-intensity noise exposure affects the hearing thresholds of juvenile snapper

“…Several studies have reported that hearing loss in fishes can be temporary, whereby their hearing recovers post-noise exposure. These temporary threshold shifts were first documented in goldfish (Popper & Clarke 1976), and have been confirmed more recently in several other species of fish (Scholik & Yan 2001, Amoser & Ladich 2003, Smith et al 2004, 2006. This recovery in hearing is most likely due to the proliferation of new hair cells (Popper & Hoxter 1984, Lombarte & Popper 1994 or the regeneration of damaged ones (Lombarte et al 1993, Smith et al 2006, Schuck & Smith 2009), al though there may be other mechanisms involved for temporary shifts in hearing.…”

“…However, even fishes without specialised linkages may still be sensitive to acoustic pressure, through what is known as an indirect stimulus, where the swim bladder vibrations radiate to the inner ear indirectly (Coombs & Popper 1979, Montgomery et al 2006. Extensive hearing loss of up to 30 dB has been described in species with more sensitive hearing abilities (Scholik & Yan 2001, Amoser & Ladich 2003, Smith et al 2004; therefore, there is the possibility that hearing loss could be larger in fishes with specialisations if they were exposed to the same experimental conditions. Whilst shifts were observed in auditory thresholds, it is not known whether these shifts were temporary or permanent.…”