Auditory sensitivity and ecological relevance: the functional audiogram as modelled by the bat detecting moth ear.
Auditory sensitivity has often been measured by identifying neural threshold in real-time (online) which can introduce bias in the audiograms that are produced. We tested this by recording auditory nerve activity of the notodontid moth Nadata gibbosa elicited by bat-like ultrasound and analysing the response offline. We compared this audiogram with a published online audiogram showing that the bias introduced can result in a difference in the audiogram shape. In the second part of our study we compared offline audiograms using spike number as threshold with others that used spike period and stimulus/spike latency, variables that have been suggested as providing behaviourally functional criteria. These comparisons reveal that functional audiograms are more flatly tuned than simple spike audiograms. The shapes of behavioural audiograms are discussed in the context of the selection pressure that maintains their shape, bat predation. Finally, we make predictions on the distance from bats at which notodontid moths use negative phonotaxis or the acoustic startle response.
Jackson
Matthew E
ME
Department of Biology, University of Toronto Mississauga, 3359 Mississauga Rd., Mississauga, ON, L5L 1C6, Canada. matt.e.jackson@gmail.com
Asi
Navdeep S
NS
Fullard
James H
JH
D000161:Acoustic Stimulation / Q000379:methods; D000818:Animals; D001309:Auditory Threshold / Q000502:physiology; D002685:Chiroptera; D003056:Cochlear Nerve / Q000502:physiology*; D004463:Ecology; D005072:Evoked Potentials, Auditory / Q000502:physiology*; D006309:Hearing / Q000502:physiology*; D066298:In Vitro Techniques; D009036:Moths / Q000502:physiology*; D009862:Online Systems; D011571:Psychoacoustics; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000502:physiology
J Exp Biol. 2003 Jan;206(Pt 2):281-94
12477898
J Exp Biol. 1996;199(Pt 4):847-56
9318627
J Acoust Soc Am. 1982 Jul;72(1):74-9
7108045
Science. 1984 Nov 23;226(4677):992-4
6505681
J Acoust Soc Am. 1982 Mar;71(3):585-90
7085967
J Exp Biol. 1966 Feb;44(1):17-31
5922736
J Exp Biol. 1997 Feb;200(Pt 3):649-59
9057313
J Exp Zool. 1957 Feb;134(1):127-57
13428949
PLoS One. 2008 Apr 30;3(4):e2036
18446226
Annu Rev Entomol. 1996;41:433-50
15012336
J Neurophysiol. 2002 Nov;88(5):2322-8
12424273
J Appl Behav Anal. 1977 Spring;10(1):141-50
16795543
J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2009 Oct;195(10):955-60
19727759
J Exp Biol. 2008 Dec;211(Pt 24):3808-15
19043053
Proc Biol Sci. 1997 Jan 22;264(1378):83-8
9061963
J Insect Physiol. 1966 Oct;12(10):1227-44
6005040
J Acoust Soc Am. 2000 Nov;108(5 Pt 1):2419-29
11108382
J Comp Neurol. 2008 Jun 10;508(5):677-86
18389500
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Aug 19;105(33):11812-7
18695227
J Exp Biol. 1999 Jul;202 (Pt 13):1711-23
10359675
Science. 1979 Jan 5;203(4375):16-21
758674
J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2006 Jul;192(7):677-89
16523340
J Exp Biol. 2005 Feb;208(Pt 4):595-601
15695752
J Neurophysiol. 2003 Oct;90(4):2484-93
14534273
J Comp Physiol A. 1988 Dec;164(2):251-8
3244131