Evolution of Sound Localization in Mammals

Heffner, Rickye S.; Heffner, Henry E.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-2784-7_43

Cited by 137 publications

(139 citation statements)

References 90 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

135

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By contrast, it is not immediately clear what behavioral advantage would occur from directing auditory attention to the location ofa visual cue. Indeed, many researchers have argued that one of the primary purposes ofauditory localization is the reverse influence: to direct attention toward interesting visual events that may be outside the current field or focus of view (e.g., Aitkin, 1986;Harrison & Irving, 1966;Heffner & Heffner, 1992a, 1992bPerrott, Saberi, Brown, & Strybel, 1990;Pumphrey, 1950). According to this account, there might be no adaptive advantage in directing auditory attention to a sudden visual event, given that any such event in the field of view will automatically result in an exogenous shift of visual attention in its direction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-modal links in exogenous covert spatial orienting between touch, audition, and vision

Spence

Nicholls

Gillespie

et al. 1998

Perception & Psychophysics

229

176

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments investigated cross-modal links between touch, audition, and vision in the control of covert exogenous orienting. In the first two experiments, participants made speeded discrimination responses (continuous vs. pulsed) for tactile targets presented randomly to the index finger of either hand. Targets were preceded at a variable stimulus onset asynchrony (150,200,or 300msec) by a spatially uninformative cue that was either auditory (Experiment 1) or visual (Experiment 2) on the same or opposite side as the tactile target. Tactile discriminations were more rapid and accurate when cue and target occurred on the same side, revealing cross-modal covert orienting. In Experiment 3, spatially uninformative tactile cues were presented prior to randomly intermingled auditory and visual targets requiring an elevation discrimination response (up vs. down). Responses were significantly faster for targets in both modalities when presented ipsilateral to the tactile cue. These findings demonstrate that the peripheral presentation of spatially uninformative auditory and visual cues produces crossmodal orienting that affects touch, and that tactile cues can also produce cross-modal covert orienting that affects audition and vision.Our senses are constantly bombarded by information arriving at the various sensory epithelia. Mechanisms of attention allow us to process selectively just those stimuli that may be ofparticular interest to us. Numerous studies have shown that people can focus their visual attention covertly (i.e., without head or eye movements, etc.) on a particular location, and so enhance the processing ofstimuli occurring there (see Posner, 1978, for a classic description of such findings; see also Klein, Kingstone, &Pontefract, 1992, andLaBerge, 1995, for more recent reviews). Although the majority of such studies of spatial attention have focused on unimodal selection, within just visual scenes, there has been a resurgence ofinterest recently in the possible effects of covert spatial orienting within the other sensory modalities-particularly, audition (e.g.,

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-modal links in exogenous covert spatial orienting between touch, audition, and vision

Spence

Nicholls

Gillespie

et al. 1998

Perception & Psychophysics

229

176

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Scaling arguments such as these address the mechanisms underlying the variation in high-frequency hearing, but it is also important to examine the selective pressures that shape the hearing of mammals. In the case of high-frequency hearing, the explanation for the close correlation with head size (more specifically, interaural distance, as will be shown below) is that being able to detect high frequencies allows mammals to localize sound using pinna cues and spectral differences between the ears (Heffner and Heffner, 1992a).…”

Section: High-frequency Hearingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Primate hearing from a mammalian perspective

2004

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review discusses hearing performance in primates and selective pressures that may influence it. The hearing sensitivity and sound-localization abilities of primates, as indicated by behavioral tests, are reviewed and compared to hearing and sound localization among mammals in general. Primates fit the mammalian pattern with small species hearing higher frequencies than larger species in order to use spectral/intensity cues for sound localization. In this broader comparative context, the restricted highfrequency hearing of humans is not unusual. All of the primates tested so far are able to hear frequencies below 125 Hz, placing them among the majority of mammals. Sound-localization acuity has been determined for only three primates, and here also they have relatively good localization acuity (with a minimum audible angle roughly similar to other mammals such as cats, pigs, and opossums). This is in keeping with the pattern among mammals in general, in which species with narrow fields of best vision, such as a fovea, are better localizers than those with broad fields of best vision. Multiple lines of evidence support the view that sound localization is the selective pressure on smaller primates and on other mammals with short interaural distances for hearing high frequencies. © 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc. Key words: audiogram; primates; mammals; auditionThis is a review of the hearing of primates and the selective pressures involved in the evolution of mammalian hearing. Only behavioral tests of hearing are considered because it is the behavior of whole animals, not the mechanisms that might underlie it, that is subject to selective pressures. The responses of individual neurons and small groups of neurons may be relevant to how primates and other animals hear as they do, but not why. Similarly, morphological differences in the middle and inner ear are only alluded to as they provide mechanisms to support hearing; a good review of this topic can be found in Nummela (1995). Different mechanisms may be used to achieve similar abilities and do little to explain the origin of different hearing abilities in different species.The earliest comparative studies of hearing were conducted by Francis Galton in the late 1800s. By observing the natural responses of different species to unexpected high-pitched whistles, Galton discovered that cats can hear higher than humans and that humans lose their high-frequency hearing as they get older. However, he also thought that small dogs could hear high frequencies but that big dogs could not. We now know that large and small dogs all hear high frequencies (Heffner HE, 1983), but that big dogs do not necessarily respond to them, perhaps because high-pitched sounds are not as likely to signal danger to a large animal as are low-pitched sounds. Think of grass rustling as a mouse scurries through it compared to the thud of a branch broken by a buffalo. So, for the purposes of comparing hearing abilities across species, data were only considered if they were based on hearing test...

show abstract

“…This yields the time required for sound traveling as a plane wave arriving at one ear to reach the opposite ear. Scientists have established a correlation between IA TD and functional upper frequency hearing limit in terrestrial mammals (Masterton et al 1969, Heffner & Heffner 1992). The upper functional hearing limit for terrestrial animals and pinnipeds in air was defined as the frequency perceived at threshold of 60 dB re 20 pPa (Fay 1992, Hemilä et al 1995 (Fig 5).…”

Section: Interaural Distance Measurements Were Converted Into Maximalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Møhl (1968a) hypothesized that the second, shallower slope, not observed in land mammals at audible frequencies, represented a transition from the more sensitive sound reception pathway through the outer and middle ear to bone conduction (Fig 6). (ic/t water, triangles) were plotted with regression lines from prior studies (Heffner & Heffner 1992, Ketten 2000. Note that the curvilinear in water and straight line intermeatal and intercochlear / intertympanic distances were calculated using the sound speed values for water (1450 m/s) rather than air (350 m/s).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Terrestrial mammal interaural distances based on inLermeatal distances. Aquatic mammal interaural distances based on intercochlear distances, The dashed line is a previously published regression for terrestrial animals for in-air hearing limits, data points omitted (Heffner & Heffner 1992), Four points are plotted for each píniped species in this study: external intermeatal time distance in air (air, filled circles) and in water (water, open circles), internal intermeatal (im water, squares) and intercochlear-intertympanic averages (ic/t water, triangles). For the highly sexually dimorphic species, California sea lions and Northern angled.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Morphometric analysis of ears in two families of pinnipeds

Marsh¹

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evolution of Sound Localization in Mammals

Cited by 137 publications

References 90 publications

Cross-modal links in exogenous covert spatial orienting between touch, audition, and vision

Cross-modal links in exogenous covert spatial orienting between touch, audition, and vision

Primate hearing from a mammalian perspective

Morphometric analysis of ears in two families of pinnipeds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About