Provisional Audiogram for the Shark,
            <i>Carcharhinus leucas</i>

Kritzler, Henry; Wood, Langley

doi:10.1126/science.133.3463.1480

Cited by 53 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has long been known that sharks can detect sounds and modify their behavior accordingly (Parker, 1909;Kritzler and Wood, 1961;Olla, 1962;Dijkgraaf, 1963;Nelson and Gruber, 1963;Davies et al, 1963;Nelson and Johnson, 1972;Kelly and Nelson, 1975;Myrberg, 1978). Elasmobranchs can perceive low-frequency sound; their best sensitivity is in the 100 Hz range, but sensitivity decreases rapidly toward 1000 Hz (Nelson and Gruber, 1963;Nelson, 1967;Banner, 1972;Kelly and Nelson, 1975).…”

Section: Function Of the Inner Earmentioning

confidence: 96%

Remarks on the inner ear of elasmobranchs and its interpretation from skeletal labyrinth morphology

Maisey

2001

Journal of Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The structure and function of the craniate inner ear is reviewed, with 33 apomorphic characters of the membranous labyrinth and associated structures identified in craniates, gnathostomes, and elasmobranchs. Elasmobranchs are capable of low-frequency semi-directional phonoreception, even in the absence of any pressure-to-displacement transducer such as ear ossicles. The endolymphatic (parietal) fossa, semicircular canals, and crista (macula) neglecta are all adapted toward phonoreception. Some (but not all) of the morphological features associated with phonoreception can be inferred from the elasmobranch skeletal labyrinth. Endocranial spaces such as the skeletal labyrinth also provide suites of morphological characters that may be incorporated into phylogenetic analyses, irrespective of how closely these spaces reflect underlying soft anatomy. The skeletal labyrinths of Squalus and Notorynchus are compared using silicone endocasts and high-resolution CT-scanning. The latter procedure offers several advantages over other techniques; it is more informative, nondestructive, preserves relationships of surrounding structures, and it can be applied both to modern and fossil material.

show abstract

Section: Function Of the Inner Earmentioning

confidence: 96%

Remarks on the inner ear of elasmobranchs and its interpretation from skeletal labyrinth morphology

Maisey

2001

Journal of Morphology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Early experiments included measurements of the hearing thresholds of several species (Kritzler & Wood 1961;Olla 1962;Banner 1967;Nelson 1967;Kelly and Nelson 1975;Casper et al 2003), examinations of the anatomy involved in sound detection (Tester et al 1972;Fay et al 1974;Corwin 1977), mapping the auditory neural pathways (Barry 1987), and field attraction experiments to determine what sounds attract sharks in their natural environments (Nelson and Gruber 1963;Richard 1968;Myrberg et al 1969;Nelson et al 1969;Myrberg et al 1972;Myrberg 1978). Despite this vast literature, the overall hearing abilities of this subclass of fishes remain largely unknown.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Of the five species of elasmobranchs tested, only two studies measured hearing thresholds with reference to particle motion, the lemon shark (Banner 1967) and the horn shark (Kelly and Nelson 1975), while the rest measured the pressure sensitivity of the sharks (Kritzler and Wood 1961;Nelson 1967;Casper et al 2003). Sound consists of a propagating sound pressure wave and directional particle motion (for general reviews see Kalmijn 1988; Rogers and Cox 1988;Bass and Clark 2003;Bass and McKibben 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evoked Potential Audiograms of the Nurse Shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum) and the Yellow Stingray (Urobatis jamaicensis)

Casper

Mann

2006

Environ Biol Fish

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The hearing thresholds of the nurse shark, Ginglymostoma cirratum, and the yellow stingray, Urobatis jamaicensis, were measured using auditory evoked potentials (AEP). Stimuli were calibrated using a pressure-velocity probe so that the acoustic field could be completely characterized. The results show similar hearing thresholds for both species and similar hearing thresholds to previously measured audiograms for the lemon shark, Negaprion brevirostris, and the horn shark, Heterodontis francisi. All of these audiograms suggest poor hearing abilities, raising questions about field studies showing attraction of sharks to acoustic signals. By extrapolating the particle acceleration thresholds into estimates of their equivalent far-field sound pressure levels, it appears that these sharks cannot likely detect most of the sounds that have attracted sharks in the field.

show abstract

“…Sound production and reception have been demonstrated for many aquatic vertebrates including teleost fish (Myrberg, 1981), elasmobranch fish (Kritzler and Wood, 1961), reptiles (Bartol et al, 1999) and marine mammals (Johnson, 1967;Norris et al, 1961).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sound detection by the longfin squid (Loligo pealeii) studied with auditory evoked potentials: sensitivity to low-frequency particle motion and not pressure

Mooney

Hanlon

Christensen‐Dalsgaard

et al. 2010

Journal of Experimental Biology

140

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYAlthough hearing has been described for many underwater species, there is much debate regarding if and how cephalopods detect sound. Here we quantify the acoustic sensitivity of the longfin squid (Loligo pealeii) using near-field acoustic and shakergenerated acceleration stimuli. Sound field pressure and particle motion components were measured from 30 to 10,000Hz and acceleration stimuli were measured from 20 to 1000Hz. Responses were determined using auditory evoked potentials (AEPs) with electrodes placed near the statocysts. Evoked potentials were generated by both stimuli and consisted of two wave types: (1) rapid stimulus-following waves, and (2) slower, high-amplitude waves, similar to some fish AEPs. Responses were obtained between 30 and 500Hz with lowest thresholds between 100 and 200Hz. At the best frequencies, AEP amplitudes were often >20V. Evoked potentials were extinguished at all frequencies if (1) water temperatures were less than 8°C, (2) statocysts were ablated, or (3) recording electrodes were placed in locations other than near the statocysts. Both the AEP response characteristics and the range of responses suggest that squid detect sound similarly to most fish, with the statocyst acting as an accelerometer through which squid detect the particle motion component of a sound field. The modality and frequency range indicate that squid probably detect acoustic particle motion stimuli from both predators and prey as well as low-frequency environmental sound signatures that may aid navigation. Supplementary material available online at

show abstract

Provisional Audiogram for the Shark, Carcharhinus leucas

Abstract: In an operant-conditioning study, a bull shark responded to signals at frequencies between 100 and 1500 cy/sec. In its band of greatest sensitivity (400 to 600 cy/sec), it discriminated, from high-level ambient noise, signals of amplitudes which the apparatus could not measure.

Cited by 53 publications

References 7 publications

Remarks on the inner ear of elasmobranchs and its interpretation from skeletal labyrinth morphology

Remarks on the inner ear of elasmobranchs and its interpretation from skeletal labyrinth morphology

Evoked Potential Audiograms of the Nurse Shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum) and the Yellow Stingray (Urobatis jamaicensis)

Sound detection by the longfin squid (Loligo pealeii) studied with auditory evoked potentials: sensitivity to low-frequency particle motion and not pressure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About