2010
DOI: 10.1007/s00265-010-0983-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Signal recognition by frogs in the presence of temporally fluctuating chorus-shaped noise

Abstract: The background noise generated in large social aggregations of calling individuals is a potent source of auditory masking for animals that communicate acoustically. Despite similarities with the so-called "cocktail-party problem" in humans, few studies have explicitly investigated how non-human animals solve the perceptual task of separating biologically relevant acoustic signals from ambient background noise. Under certain conditions, humans experience a release from auditory masking when speech is presented … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
53
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

4
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(54 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
0
53
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The chorus-shaped noise used in our study was broadcast at 73 dB SPL. Previous studies in our lab have shown that this and similar noise levels, which reflect naturalistic sound amplitudes (Schwartz et al, 2001;Swanson et al, 2007), are adequate to interfere with a female's perception of conspecific calls (e.g., Bee and Swanson, 2007;Bee and Schwartz, 2009;Vélez and Bee, 2010;Nityananda and Bee, 2012). Under the conditions tested in the present study, however, we were unable to demonstrate that performance in a level discrimination task deteriorated in the presence of chorus-like noise relative to quiet conditions.…”
Section: B Implications For Studies Of Auditory Maskingcontrasting
confidence: 52%
“…The chorus-shaped noise used in our study was broadcast at 73 dB SPL. Previous studies in our lab have shown that this and similar noise levels, which reflect naturalistic sound amplitudes (Schwartz et al, 2001;Swanson et al, 2007), are adequate to interfere with a female's perception of conspecific calls (e.g., Bee and Swanson, 2007;Bee and Schwartz, 2009;Vélez and Bee, 2010;Nityananda and Bee, 2012). Under the conditions tested in the present study, however, we were unable to demonstrate that performance in a level discrimination task deteriorated in the presence of chorus-like noise relative to quiet conditions.…”
Section: B Implications For Studies Of Auditory Maskingcontrasting
confidence: 52%
“…The first method was based on response proportions. Using the same general methods and response criterion as in the present study, Vélez and Bee (Vélez and Bee, 2010) estimated a 'false alarm' rate of 20%; i.e. about 2 in 10 females released at the center of our test arena in the absence of any broadcast sound are expected to exhibit behaviors that our criterion would consider to be a response.…”
Section: C Kuczynski and Othersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The slow rate of fluctuation appears to correspond to the call rates and call timing interactions of males in the chorus. The faster rate corresponds to the pulse rate of the advertisement call (V elez and Bee, 2010). Evidence from studies that have measured masked signal-recognition thresholds (Bee and Schwartz, 2009) indicates that thresholds for responding to conspecific calls are significantly lower in temporally modulated, chorus-shaped noise than in unmodulated noise (V elez andBee, 2011, 2013;Schwartz et al, 2013).…”
Section: B Dip Listening In Modulated Noisementioning
confidence: 95%
“…1(a)] that had a long-term frequency spectrum modeled after that of gray treefrog choruses recorded between May and July of 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 (additional details of recording protocols can be found in V elez and Bee, 2010Bee, , 2011. Our noises were based on average spectra determined from 90-s digital recordings (44 100 Hz sampling rate, 16-bit resolution) of between 3 and 14 different choruses.…”
Section: Unmodulated Sam and Cam Noisesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation