Hearing and communication in blue monkeys (Cercopithecus mitis)

Brown, Charles H.; Waser, Peter M.

doi:10.1016/s0003-3472(84)80325-5

Cited by 58 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mold was then removed and sectioned under a microscope along the line of attachment of the tympanic membrane. The modified molds were then digitally photographed at a distance at least 12 times the maximum dimension to be measured to minimize the ef- (Beecher, 1974a); Callithrix jacchus (Seiden, 1957); Cercopithecus mitis (Brown and Waser, 1984); Cercopithecus neglectus and Chlorocebus aethiops (Owren et al, 1988); Galago senegalensis ; Lemur catta (Gillette et al, 1973); Macaca fuscata and Homo sapiens (Jackson et al, 1999); Macaca mulatta (Pfingst et al, 1978); Macaca nemestrina and Macaca fascicularis (Stebbins et al, 1966); Nycticebus coucang and Perodicticus potto (Heffner and Masterson, 1970); Pan troglodytes (Kojima, 1990); Papio cynocephalus (Hienz et al, 1982); Saimiri sciureus (Beecher, 1974b).…”

Section: Middle Earmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An increase in low-frequency sensitivity could result in a considerable expansion of the distance over which primates can adequately communicate. Brown and Waser (1984) found that a heightened sensitivity of around 10 dB in the low-frequency range of blue monkeys (Cercopithecus mitis) results in a four-fold increase in the audible distance of their low-frequency boom calls. The average difference in platyrrhine and lorisoid hearing between 250 and 1,000 Hz is 14.6 dB, suggesting that New World monkeys have the potential to benefit from a considerable increase in the audible distance of long calls, although the exact propagation distances are related to particular aspects of different environments (Waser and Brown, 1986).…”

Section: Morphological Effects On Primate Hearingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Primate auditory diversity and its influence on hearing performance

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The auditory region contains numerous structures that have proven useful for phylogenetic classification at various taxonomic levels. However, little work has been done in primates relating differences in morphology to variations in hearing performance. This study documents anatomical and physiological distinctions within primates and begins to address the functional and evolutionary consequences of these and other auditory features. The dimensions of the outer ear (pinna) were measured in cadaveric specimens representing nearly every primate family and used to calculate a shape ratio (height/width). It was found that nonanthropoids have a significantly higher ratio than anthropoids, although the actual height was not found to differ. This indicates that most nonanthropoids have ears that are tall and narrow, whereas monkeys and apes are characterized by ears with more equal height and width dimensions. Eardrum area, stapedial footplate area, and ossicular lever arm lengths were measured in dried specimens to calculate an impedance transformer ratio. A distinction was found between anthropoids and strepsirrhines, with the latter group having a transformer ratio indicative of a higher percentage of acoustic energy transmission through the middle ear. Audiogram data were gathered from the literature to analyze hearing sensitivity and it was found that platyrrhines illustrate more low-frequency sensitivity than like-sized lorisoids. The effects of intraspecific variation on the audiogram results were also examined and were found to produce similar results as the analysis using species mean threshold values. Lastly, correlations between morphological and audiogram variables were examined. Several measures of hearing sensitivity were found to be correlated with pinna shape but correlations with middle ear transmission properties were weaker. In addition to using traditional statistical techniques, phylogenetic corrective methods were applied to address the problem of statistical nonindependence of the data and the results of both analyses are compared. These findings are discussed with respect to how sensory adaptations and phylogenetic history may be related to the current radiation of primates. Key words: primate hearing; outer ears; middle ears; audiogram; phylogenyPrimates express numerous modifications on the fundamental mammalian middle ear morphology and these differences have proven useful for phylogenetic classification at various taxonomic levels (MacPhee and Cartmill, 1986). Among extant strepsirrhines, most Malagasy primates are characterized by a free-floating tympanic ring surrounded by a single relatively large tympanic cavity while lorisoids have a tympanic ring that is fused to the lateral wall of a smaller tympanic cavity. Lorises appear to maintain a substantial effective cavity volume by having additional pneumatic spaces off of the epitympanic recess. Extant haplorhines are similar to lorises in possessing epitympanic sinuses (except tarsiers) (MacPhee and Cartmill, 1986) and a fused tym...

show abstract

Section: Middle Earmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Morphological Effects On Primate Hearingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Primate auditory diversity and its influence on hearing performance

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In theory, these ECD dimensions should provide a basis for inferring hearing sensitivity, which in turn has behavioural implications. For example, vocalizing vertebrates generally produce vocal frequencies within the range of their hearing (Konshi 1970;Brown & Waser 1984;Endler 1992;Narins et al 2004), so estimates of hearing frequency range may be informative about the presence of vocalization and likely vocalization frequencies in extinct taxa (Evans 1936;Manley 1973). These estimates may also provide information about sociality and vocal complexity, since vocal communication tends to be more complex in species that form large, socially intricate aggregations (Evans 1936;Blumstein 1997).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These estimates may also provide information about sociality and vocal complexity, since vocal communication tends to be more complex in species that form large, socially intricate aggregations (Evans 1936;Blumstein 1997). Vocality and hearing may even provide some indication of preferred habitat in extinct taxa, as species inhabiting closed environments where visual communication is ineffective often possess more complex (Garrick & Lang 1977) or lower frequency (Brown & Waser 1984) vocalizations than sister taxa that do not.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inner ear anatomy is a proxy for deducing auditory capability and behaviour in reptiles and birds

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inferences of hearing capabilities and audition-related behaviours in extinct reptiles and birds have previously been based on comparing cochlear duct dimensions with those of living species. However, the relationship between inner-ear bony anatomy and hearing ability or vocalization has never been tested rigorously in extant or fossil taxa. Here, micro-computed tomographic analysis is used to investigate whether simple endosseous cochlear duct (ECD) measurements can be fitted to models of hearing sensitivity, vocalization, sociality and environmental preference in 59 extant reptile and bird species, selected based on their vocalization ability. Length, rostrocaudal/mediolateral width and volume measurements were taken from ECD virtual endocasts and scaled to basicranial length. Multiple regression of these data with measures of hearing sensitivity, vocal complexity, sociality and environmental preference recovered positive correlations between ECD length and hearing range/mean frequency, vocal complexity, the behavioural traits of pair bonding and living in large aggregations, and a negative correlation between ECD length/rostrocaudal width and aquatic environments. No other dimensions correlated with these variables. Our results suggest that ECD length can be used to predict mean hearing frequency and range in fossil taxa, and that this measure may also predict vocal complexity and large group sociality given comprehensive datasets.

show abstract

“…AMHs are characterized by a drastically lowered high-frequency cutoff and maintaining high sensitivity in the low to midfrequencies, resulting in a U-shaped audiogram (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7). In primates, such hearing variability is assumed to be partly related to forms of vocalization and habitat acoustics (8)(9)(10). Diverse hearing capabilities are also related to the morphology of the diminutive middle ear ossicles housed in the tympanic cavity (11,12).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphology and function of Neandertal and modern human ear ossicles

Stoessel

David

Gunz

et al. 2016

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The diminutive middle ear ossicles (malleus, incus, stapes) housed in the tympanic cavity of the temporal bone play an important role in audition. The few known ossicles of Neandertals are distinctly different from those of anatomically modern humans (AMHs), despite the close relationship between both human species. Although not mutually exclusive, these differences may affect hearing capacity or could reflect covariation with the surrounding temporal bone. Until now, detailed comparisons were hampered by the small sample of Neandertal ossicles and the unavailability of methods combining analyses of ossicles with surrounding structures. Here, we present an analysis of the largest sample of Neandertal ossicles to date, including many previously unknown specimens, covering a wide geographic and temporal range. Microcomputed tomography scans and 3D geometric morphometrics were used to quantify shape and functional properties of the ossicles and the tympanic cavity and make comparisons with recent and extinct AMHs as well as African apes. We find striking morphological differences between ossicles of AMHs and Neandertals. Ossicles of both Neandertals and AMHs appear derived compared with the inferred ancestral morphology, albeit in different ways. Brain size increase evolved separately in AMHs and Neandertals, leading to differences in the tympanic cavity and, consequently, the shape and spatial configuration of the ossicles. Despite these different evolutionary trajectories, functional properties of the middle ear of AMHs and Neandertals are largely similar. The relevance of these functionally equivalent solutions is likely to conserve a similar auditory sensitivity level inherited from their last common ancestor.middle ear | homo | 3D shape | covariation T he hominin fossil record can only provide indirect information about auditory capacities of our extinct relatives. Inferences about the evolution of the human sense of hearing require understanding of the interplay between form and function in extant species. When auditory capacities are visualized as audiograms, plotting the sensitivity for different frequencies, anatomically modern humans (AMHs) differ from the W-shaped pattern found in most anthropoid primates. AMHs are characterized by a drastically lowered high-frequency cutoff and maintaining high sensitivity in the low to midfrequencies, resulting in a U-shaped audiogram (1-7). In primates, such hearing variability is assumed to be partly related to forms of vocalization and habitat acoustics (8-10). Diverse hearing capabilities are also related to the morphology of the diminutive middle ear ossicles housed in the tympanic cavity (11, 12). The malleus, incus, and stapes form the ossicular chain that connects the tympanic membrane to the oval window of the inner ear. These bones play an important role in audition by amplifying and regulating the sound waves transmitted to the cochlea (11,(13)(14)(15). In particular, the middle ear acts as a transformer that matches the impedances between the air and the pe...

show abstract

Hearing and communication in blue monkeys (Cercopithecus mitis)

Cited by 58 publications

References 26 publications

Primate auditory diversity and its influence on hearing performance

Primate auditory diversity and its influence on hearing performance

Inner ear anatomy is a proxy for deducing auditory capability and behaviour in reptiles and birds

Morphology and function of Neandertal and modern human ear ossicles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About