General Bibliography

Busnel, R. G.; Fish, James F.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-7254-7_81

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 352 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Echolocating bats emit sonar sounds and perceive objects from the echoes of these sounds that reflect back to their ears (Busnel and Fish, 1980;Griffin, 1958;Nachtigall, 1988).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clutter interference and the integration time of echoes in the echolocating bat, E p t e s i c u s f u s c u s

Simmons

Freedman²,

Stevenson³

et al. 1989

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability of the echolocating bat, Eptesicus fuscus, to detect a sonar target is affected by the presence of other targets along the same axis at slightly different ranges. If echoes from one target arrive at about the same delay as echoes from another target, clutter interference occurs and one set of echoes masks the other. Although the bat's sonar emissions and the echoes themselves are 2 to 5 ms long, echoes (of approximately equal sensation levels--around 15 dB SL) only interfere with each other if they arrive within 200 to 400 microseconds of the same arrival time. This figure is an estimate of the integration time of the bat's sonar receiver for echoes. The fine structure of the clutter-interference data reflects the reinforcement and cancellation of echoes according to their time separation. When clutter interference first occurs, the waveforms of test and cluttering echoes already overlap for much of their duration. The masking effect underlying clutter interference appears specifically due to overlap, not between raw echo waveforms, but between the patterns of mechanical excitation created when echoes pass through bandpass filters equivalent to auditory-nerve tuning curves. While the time scale of clutter interference is substantially shorter than the duration of echo waveforms, it still is much longer than the eventual width of a target's range-axis image expressed in terms of echo delay.

show abstract

“…Echolocating bats emit sonar sounds and perceive objects from the echoes of these sounds that reflect back to their ears (Busnel and Fish, 1980;Griffin, 1958;Nachtigall, 1988).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clutter interference and the integration time of echoes in the echolocating bat, E p t e s i c u s f u s c u s

Simmons

Freedman²,

Stevenson³

et al. 1989

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The bottlenosed dolphin ( Tursiops truncatus ), like other cetacean species, is usually regarded as an acoustically specialized and acoustically oriented animal (e.g., Bullock et al, 1968; Busnel & Fish, 1980, Evans, 1967; Herman, 1980; Norris, 1968; Popper, 1980; Reysenbach de Haan, 1957). Consistent with this view are reports of high levels of performance of bottlenosed dolphins on complex cognitive tasks in which only acoustic information was used (e.g., Herman, 1975; Herman & Gordon, 1974; Herman & Thompson, 1982; Ralston & Herman, 1989; Roitblat, Penner, & Nachtigall, 1990; Thompson & Herman, 1977).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Bottlenosed dolphin and human recognition of veridical and degraded video displays of an artificial gestural language.

Herman¹,

Morrel-Samuels²,

Pack³

1990

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

2 bottlenosed dolphins proficient in interpreting gesture language signs viewed veridical and degraded gestures via TV without explicit training. In Exp. 1, dolphins immediately understood most gestures: Performance was high throughout degradations successively obscuring the head, torso, arms, and fingers, though deficits occurred for gestures degraded to a point-light display (PLD) of the signer's hands. In Exp. 2, humans of varying gestural fluency saw the PLD and veridical gestures from Exp. 1. Again, performance declined in the PLD condition. Though the dolphin recognized gestures as accurately as fluent humans, effects of the gesture's formational properties were not identical for humans and dolphin. Results suggest that the dolphin uses a network of semantic and gestural representations, that bottom-up processing predominates when the dolphin's short-term memory is taxed, and that recognition is affected by variables germane to grammatical category, short-term memory, and visual perception.

show abstract

“…Mammals living above ground use vision (Schöne 1984), hearing (e.g. bats: Busnel & Fish 1980;shrews: Gould et al 1971;Forsman & Malmquist 1988) and touch (Carvell & Simons 1990) to estimate obstacle dimensions, location and nature.…”

Section: Mechanism Of Orientationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detours by the blind mole-rat follow assessment of location and physical properties of underground obstacles

Kimchi

Terkel

2003

Animal Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

General Bibliography

Cited by 8 publications

References 352 publications

Clutter interference and the integration time of echoes in the echolocating bat, E p t e s i c u s f u s c u s

Clutter interference and the integration time of echoes in the echolocating bat, E p t e s i c u s f u s c u s

Bottlenosed dolphin and human recognition of veridical and degraded video displays of an artificial gestural language.

Detours by the blind mole-rat follow assessment of location and physical properties of underground obstacles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About