Rethinking sound detection by fishes

Popper, Arthur N.; Fay, Richard R.

doi:10.1016/j.heares.2009.12.023

Cited by 317 publications

(263 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

253

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The proposed mechanism resembles the swimbladder-inner ear coupling in otophysine fish, where coupling of the air-filled swimbladder to the inner ear by the Weberian ossicles enhances sound sensitivity by 40 dB or more [25]. The turtle ear also closely resembles the ear of the clawed frog (Xenopus laevis), which has a cartilaginous tympanic disc and an air-filled middle ear cavity that adapt the ear for underwater hearing [23,26 -28].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Specialization for underwater hearing by the tympanic middle ear of the turtle,Trachemys scripta elegans

Christensen‐Dalsgaard

Brandt

Willis

et al. 2012

Proc. R. Soc. B.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Turtles, like other amphibious animals, face a trade-off between terrestrial and aquatic hearing. We used laser vibrometry and auditory brainstem responses to measure their sensitivity to vibration stimuli and to airborne versus underwater sound. Turtles are most sensitive to sound underwater, and their sensitivity depends on the large middle ear, which has a compliant tympanic disc attached to the columella. Behind the disc, the middle ear is a large air-filled cavity with a volume of approximately 0.5 ml and a resonance frequency of approximately 500 Hz underwater. Laser vibrometry measurements underwater showed peak vibrations at 500-600 Hz with a maximum of 300 mm s 21 Pa 21 , approximately 100 times more than the surrounding water. In air, the auditory brainstem response audiogram showed a best sensitivity to sound of 300-500 Hz. Audiograms before and after removing the skin covering reveal that the cartilaginous tympanic disc shows unchanged sensitivity, indicating that the tympanic disc, and not the overlying skin, is the key sound receiver. If air and water thresholds are compared in terms of sound intensity, thresholds in water are approximately 20-30 dB lower than in air. Therefore, this tympanic ear is specialized for underwater hearing, most probably because sound-induced pulsations of the air in the middle ear cavity drive the tympanic disc.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Specialization for underwater hearing by the tympanic middle ear of the turtle,Trachemys scripta elegans

Christensen‐Dalsgaard

Brandt

Willis

et al. 2012

Proc. R. Soc. B.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We characterized the acoustic impedance (ratio of sound pressure to particle velocity) of our experimental tank conditions as suggested by Popper and Fay (2011), using the calibration measurements at different three SPLs: 118, 130, and 145 dB (re. : 1 µPa).…”

Section: Acoustic Stimulus Generation and Calibrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, in the current study we characterized the midshipman auditory thresholds in terms of both sound pressure and particle motion. As suggested by Popper and Fay (2011), we also report the impedance (ratio of pressure to particle velocity) of our test tank (see Fig. 1a) so that the acoustic impedance of the tank conditions in this study can be used in comparison with that of future fish hearing studies.…”

Section: Appropriate Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…have evolved pressure sensitivity as a result of having a specific connection between the inner ear and an air bubble (e.g., the swim bladder) (Fay and Popper 1980;Blaxter 1981;Schellart and Popper 1992). Recently Popper and Fay (2011) proposed that all future fish hearing studies should independently characterize particle motion and sound pressure sensitivities of fish regardless of any hearing specializations that fish may possess (e.g., accessory hearing structures such as Weberian ossicles that connect the swim bladder to the inner ear). Previous auditory physiology studies of the plainfin midshipman fish have primarily reported auditory responses with regard only to sound pressure Bass 1999, 2001;Sisneros et al 2004;Bass 2003, 2005;Sisneros 2007Sisneros , 2009bAlderks and Sisneros 2011;Rohmann and Bass 2011; but for the exception see Weeg et al 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Seasonal plasticity of auditory saccular sensitivity in “sneaker” type II male plainfin midshipman fish, Porichthys notatus

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this study, we used stimulus frequencies in a lower range from 20 to 200 Hz because the zebrafish embryos/larvae that we recorded from were likely more sensitive to lower frequencies due to the fact that they had not yet developed the Weberian ossicles, an auditory accessory known to increase auditory sensitivity at high frequencies. The saccule and utricle of zebrafish of one week old or younger are only "motion sensitive" via a direct stimulus pathway as described by Popper and Fay (2011), and the inner ear of zebrafish is not yet pressure sensitive until the initial formation of the Weberian ossicles at about 20 dpf (Grande and Young 2004). The stimulus probe we used is thought to provide acoustic particle motion via direct inertial stimulation to hair cells in the otocyst.…”

Section: Development Of Structure and Function Of The Inner Earmentioning

confidence: 99%

Early Development of Hearing in Zebrafish

DeSmidt

2013

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The zebrafish (Danio rerio) has become a valuable vertebrate model for human hearing and balance disorders because it combines powerful genetics, excellent embryology, and exceptional in vivo visualization in one organism. In this study, we investigated auditory function of zebrafish at early developmental stages using the microphonic potential method. This is the first study to report ontogeny of response of hair cells in any fish during the first week post fertilization. The right ear of each zebrafish embedded in agarose was linearly stimulated with a glass probe that was driven by a calibrated piezoelectric actuator. Using beveled micropipettes filled with standard fish saline, extracellular microphonic potentials were recorded from hair cells in the inner ear of zebrafish embryos or larvae in response to 20, 50, 100, and 200-Hz stimulation. Saccular hair cells expressing green fluorescent protein of the transgenic zebrafish from 2 to 7 days post fertilization (dpf) were visualized and quantified using confocal microscopy. The otic vesicles' areas, otoliths' areas, and saccular hair cell count and density increased linearly with age and standard body length. Microphonic responses increased monotonically with stimulus intensity, stimulus frequency, and age of zebrafish. Microphonic threshold at 200 Hz gradually decreased with zebrafish age. The increases in microphonic response and sensitivity correlate with the increases in number and density of hair cells in the saccule. These results enhance our knowledge of early development of auditory function in zebrafish and provide the control data that can be used to evaluate hearing of young zebrafish morphants or mutants.

show abstract

Rethinking sound detection by fishes

Cited by 317 publications

References 59 publications

Specialization for underwater hearing by the tympanic middle ear of the turtle,Trachemys scripta elegans

Specialization for underwater hearing by the tympanic middle ear of the turtle,Trachemys scripta elegans

Seasonal plasticity of auditory saccular sensitivity in “sneaker” type II male plainfin midshipman fish, Porichthys notatus

Early Development of Hearing in Zebrafish

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About