scholarly journals Primate communication in the pure ultrasound

2012 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 508-511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marissa A. Ramsier ◽  
Andrew J. Cunningham ◽  
Gillian L. Moritz ◽  
James J. Finneran ◽  
Cathy V. Williams ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Frequency ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Auditory Brainstem ◽  
Dominant Frequency ◽  
Ultrasonic Vocalizations ◽  
Energetic Efficiency ◽  
Frequency Limit ◽  
Vocal Signals ◽  
Brainstem Response

Few mammals—cetaceans, domestic cats and select bats and rodents—can send and receive vocal signals contained within the ultrasonic domain, or pure ultrasound (greater than 20 kHz). Here, we use the auditory brainstem response (ABR) method to demonstrate that a species of nocturnal primate, the Philippine tarsier ( Tarsius syrichta ), has a high-frequency limit of auditory sensitivity of ca 91 kHz. We also recorded a vocalization with a dominant frequency of 70 kHz. Such values are among the highest recorded for any terrestrial mammal, and a relatively extreme example of ultrasonic communication. For Philippine tarsiers, ultrasonic vocalizations might represent a private channel of communication that subverts detection by predators, prey and competitors, enhances energetic efficiency, or improves detection against low-frequency background noise.

scholarly journals Social drive and the evolution of primate hearing

2012 ◽  
Vol 367 (1597) ◽  
pp. 1860-1868 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marissa A. Ramsier ◽  
Andrew J. Cunningham ◽  
James J. Finneran ◽  
Nathaniel J. Dominy
Keyword(s):  
High Frequency ◽  
Social Complexity ◽  
Selective Pressure ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Auditory Brainstem ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Vocal Signals ◽  
Brainstem Response ◽  
Response Method ◽  
And Function

The structure and function of primate communication have attracted much attention, and vocal signals, in particular, have been studied in detail. As a general rule, larger social groups emit more types of vocal signals, including those conveying the presence of specific types of predators. The adaptive advantages of receiving and responding to alarm calls are expected to exert a selective pressure on the auditory system. Yet, the comparative biology of primate hearing is limited to select species, and little attention has been paid to the effects of social and vocal complexity on hearing. Here, we use the auditory brainstem response method to generate the largest number of standardized audiograms available for any primate radiation. We compared the auditory sensitivities of 11 strepsirrhine species with and without independent contrasts and show that social complexity explains a significant amount of variation in two audiometric parameters—overall sensitivity and high-frequency limit. We verified the generality of this latter result by augmenting our analysis with published data from nine species spanning the primate order. To account for these findings, we develop and test a model of social drive. We hypothesize that social complexity has favoured enhanced hearing sensitivities, especially at higher frequencies.

Development of Low-Frequency Tone Burst versus the Click Auditory Brainstem Response

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (02) ◽  
pp. 114-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raymond M. Hurley ◽  
Annette Hurley ◽  
Charles I. Berlin
Keyword(s):  
High Frequency ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Tone Burst ◽  
Auditory Brainstem ◽  
Similar Data ◽  
Frequency Sensitivity ◽  
Frequency Tone ◽  
Brainstem Response ◽  
Threshold Testing ◽  
Wave Latency

Often ABR threshold testing employs clicks to assess high-frequency hearing, and low-frequency tone bursts to assess low-frequency sensitivity. While a maturation effect has been shown for click stimuli, similar data are lacking for low-frequency toneburst stimuli. Thus, 305 infants ranging in conceptional age (CA) from 33 weeks to 74 weeks were tested. Absolute latencies were measured for wave V at 55, 35, and 25 dB nHL in response to a click and for wave V500 in response to a 500 Hz tone burst. Major wave latency in response to 500 Hz tone bursts decreases with age and do not stabilize by 70 weeks CA. Likewise, waves III and V latencies in response to clicks decrease with age, as has been reported by others, and do not stabilize by 70 weeks CA. Wave I latency produced by clicks did not decrease with age, being mature by 33 weeks CA.

Effects of Stimulus Phase on the Normal Auditory Brainstem Response

1992 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia G. Fowler
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Brainstem Response ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Stimulus Frequency ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Auditory Brainstem ◽  
Difference Potentials ◽  
Frequency Responses ◽  
Brainstem Response ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Two Phases

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the effects of stimulus phase on the latencies and morphology of the auditory brainstem response (ABR) of normal-hearing subjects. Although click stimuli produced equivalent ABR latencies for the rarefaction and condensation phases, the subtraction of the waveforms from the two phases yielded a difference potential. Tone pip stimuli produced polarity differences that were inversely related to stimulus frequency: the higher the frequency, the smaller the ABR latency differences between responses to rarefaction and condensation stimuli, and the smaller the difference potentials. Thus, whereas the latency of click-evoked ABR is dominated by high-frequency responses with equivalent latencies regardless of stimulus phase, low-frequency responses contribute to the overall morphology of the ABR that yields the phasic difference potential. The implications of these findings are discussed with reference to subjects with high-frequency hearing losses.

Evaluation of Special Hearing Aids for Deaf Children

1971 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 527-537 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norman P. Erber
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Frequency Range ◽  
Frequency Limit ◽  
Unpublished Studies ◽  
Published Research

Two types of special hearing aid have been developed recently to improve the reception of speech by profoundly deaf children. In a different way, each special system provides greater low-frequency acoustic stimulation to deaf ears than does a conventional hearing aid. One of the devices extends the low-frequency limit of amplification; the other shifts high-frequency energy to a lower frequency range. In general, previous evaluations of these special hearing aids have obtained inconsistent or inconclusive results. This paper reviews most of the published research on the use of special hearing aids by deaf children, summarizes several unpublished studies, and suggests a set of guidelines for future evaluations of special and conventional amplification systems.

scholarly journals Earless toads sense low frequencies but miss the high notes

2017 ◽  
Vol 284 (1864) ◽  
pp. 20171670 ◽  
Author(s):  
Molly C. Womack ◽  
Jakob Christensen-Dalsgaard ◽  
Luis A. Coloma ◽  
Juan C. Chaparro ◽  
Kim L. Hoke
Keyword(s):  
High Frequency ◽  
Species Differences ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Auditory Brainstem ◽  
Low Frequencies ◽  
Hearing Sensitivity ◽  
Sensory Pathways ◽  
Airborne Sound ◽  
Vibrational Sensitivity ◽  
Species Specific

Sensory losses or reductions are frequently attributed to relaxed selection. However, anuran species have lost tympanic middle ears many times, despite anurans' use of acoustic communication and the benefit of middle ears for hearing airborne sound. Here we determine whether pre-existing alternative sensory pathways enable anurans lacking tympanic middle ears (termed earless anurans) to hear airborne sound as well as eared species or to better sense vibrations in the environment. We used auditory brainstem recordings to compare hearing and vibrational sensitivity among 10 species (six eared, four earless) within the Neotropical true toad family (Bufonidae). We found that species lacking middle ears are less sensitive to high-frequency sounds, however, low-frequency hearing and vibrational sensitivity are equivalent between eared and earless species. Furthermore, extratympanic hearing sensitivity varies among earless species, highlighting potential species differences in extratympanic hearing mechanisms. We argue that ancestral bufonids may have sufficient extratympanic hearing and vibrational sensitivity such that earless lineages tolerated the loss of high frequency hearing sensitivity by adopting species-specific behavioural strategies to detect conspecifics, predators and prey.

scholarly journals Auditory Brainstem Responses to Successive Sounds: Effects of Gap Duration and Depth

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-46
Author(s):  
Fan-Yin Cheng ◽  
Craig A. Champlin
Keyword(s):  
Background Noise ◽  
Tone Burst ◽  
Auditory Brainstem ◽  
Auditory Brainstem Responses ◽  
Physical Parameters ◽  
Temporal Acuity ◽  
Harmonic Complex ◽  
Rapid Changes ◽  
Brainstem Response ◽  
Physiological Correlate

Temporal acuity is the ability to differentiate between sounds based on fluctuations in the waveform envelope. The proximity of successive sounds and background noise diminishes the ability to track rapid changes between consecutive sounds. We determined whether a physiological correlate of temporal acuity is also affected by these factors. We recorded the auditory brainstem response (ABR) from human listeners using a harmonic complex (S1) followed by a brief tone burst (S2) with the latter serving as the evoking signal. The duration and depth of the silent gap between S1 and S2 were manipulated, and the peak latency and amplitude of wave V were measured. The latency of the responses decreased significantly as the duration or depth of the gap increased. The amplitude of the responses was not affected by the duration or depth of the gap. These findings suggest that changing the physical parameters of the gap affects the auditory system’s ability to encode successive sounds.

scholarly journals The human auditory brainstem response to running speech reveals a subcortical mechanism for selective attention

eLife ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Elia Forte ◽  
Octave Etard ◽  
Tobias Reichenbach
Keyword(s):  
Mathematical Method ◽  
Selective Attention ◽  
Auditory Cortex ◽  
Auditory Brainstem Response ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Ecological Validity ◽  
Acoustic Stimulus ◽  
Auditory Brainstem ◽  
Brainstem Response ◽  
Target Speaker

Humans excel at selectively listening to a target speaker in background noise such as competing voices. While the encoding of speech in the auditory cortex is modulated by selective attention, it remains debated whether such modulation occurs already in subcortical auditory structures. Investigating the contribution of the human brainstem to attention has, in particular, been hindered by the tiny amplitude of the brainstem response. Its measurement normally requires a large number of repetitions of the same short sound stimuli, which may lead to a loss of attention and to neural adaptation. Here we develop a mathematical method to measure the auditory brainstem response to running speech, an acoustic stimulus that does not repeat and that has a high ecological validity. We employ this method to assess the brainstem's activity when a subject listens to one of two competing speakers, and show that the brainstem response is consistently modulated by attention.

Low-Frequency Auditory Brainstem Response Threshold

1988 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 171-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Laukli ◽  
O. Fjermedal ◽  
I. W. S. Mair
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Brainstem Response ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Auditory Brainstem ◽  
Response Threshold ◽  
Brainstem Response
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document