Advertisement

Journal of Comparative Physiology A

, Volume 205, Issue 4, pp 481–489 | Cite as

A broad filter between call frequency and peripheral auditory sensitivity in northern grasshopper mice (Onychomys leucogaster)

  • Dana M. GreenEmail author
  • Tucker Scolman
  • O’neil W. Guthrie
  • Bret Pasch
Original Paper
  • 104 Downloads

Abstract

Acoustic communication is a fundamental component of mate and competitor recognition in a variety of taxa and requires animals to detect and differentiate among acoustic stimuli (Bradbury and Vehrencamp in Principles of animal communication, 2nd edn., Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, 2011). The matched filter hypothesis predicts a correspondence between peripheral auditory tuning of receivers and properties of species-specific acoustic signals, but few studies have assessed this relationship in rodents. We recorded vocalizations and measured auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) in northern grasshopper mice (Onychomys leucogaster), a species that produces long-distance calls to advertise their presence to rivals and potential mates. ABR data indicate the highest sensitivity (28.33 ± 9.07 dB SPL re: 20 μPa) at 10 kHz, roughly corresponding to the fundamental frequency (11.6 ± 0.63 kHz) of long-distance calls produced by conspecifics. However, the frequency range of peripheral auditory sensitivity was broad (8–24 kHz), indicating the potential to detect both the harmonics of conspecific calls and vocalizations of sympatric heterospecifics. Our findings provide support for the matched filter hypothesis extended to include other ecologically relevant stimuli. Our study contributes important baseline information about the sensory ecology of a unique rodent to the study of sound perception.

Keywords

Acoustic communication Auditory brainstem response Matched filter Onychomys 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Scott Nichols for his veterinary assistance and Madeline Bloomquist, Grace Griffiths, and Nathaniel Mull for their assistance with maintaining the mouse colony.

Funding

This study was funded by the E.O. Wilson Conservation award from the Animal Behavior Society (DG), Northern Arizona University (DG; BP), and the National Science Foundation- IOS # 1755429 (BP).

Compliance of ethical standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards and approval of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Northern Arizona University (#15-014 and #16-001) and guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists (Sikes et al. 2016). Founder animals were captured with a permit from the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (# 3562).

Supplementary material

359_2019_1338_MOESM1_ESM.eps (1.4 mb)
Fig. S1 Auditory brainstem response (ABR) of an individual northern grasshopper mouse in response to a 0.1 ms mono-phasic click stimulus presented at a rate of 21 presentations/second. I, II, and III refer to ABR waveforms

References

  1. Amézquita A, Flechas SV, Lima AP, Gasser H, Hödl W (2011) Acoustic interference and recognition space within a complex assemblage of dendrobatid frogs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:17058–17063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey V, Sperry CC (1929) Life history and habits of grasshopper mice, genus Onychomys. US Dept of Agr Tech Bull 145:1–19Google Scholar
  3. Barlow HB (1961) The coding of sensory messages. In: Thorpe WH, Zangwill OL (eds) Current problems in animal behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 331–360Google Scholar
  4. Barth FG (2016) A spiders sense of touch: what to do with myriads of tactile hairs? In: von der Emde G, Warrant E (eds) The ecology of animal senses: matched filters for economical sensing. Springer, New York, pp 27–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennur S, Tsunada J, Cohen YE, Liu RC (2013) Understanding the neurophysiology basis of auditory abilities for social communication: a perspective on the value of ethology paradigms. Hear Res 305:3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blatchley BJ, Cooper WA, Coleman JR (1987) Development of auditory brainstem response to tone pip stimuli in the rat. Dev Brain Res 32:75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (2011) Principles of animal communication, 2nd edn. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  8. Briggs JR, Kalcounis-Rueppell M (2011) Similar acoustic structure and behavioral context of vocalizations produced by male and female California mice in the wild. Anim Behav 82:1263–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Capranica RR, Moffat JM (1983) Neurobehavioral correlates of sound communication in anurans. In: Ewert JP, Capranica RR, Ingle DJ (eds) Advances in vertebrate neuroethology. Plenum, London, New York, pp 701–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen J, Jono T, Cui J, Yue X, Tang Y (2016) The acoustic properties of low intensity vocalizations match hearing sensitivity in the webbed-toed gecko, Gekko subpalmatus. PLoS One 11:e0146677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dent ML, Screven LA, Kobrina A (2018) Hearing in rodents. In: Dent ML, Fay RR, Popper AN (eds) Rodent bioacoustics, vol 67. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research, Cham, pp 71–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dooling RJ, Peters SS, Searcy MH (1979) Auditory sensitivity and vocalizations of the field sparrow (Spizella pusilla). Bull Psychon Soc 14:106–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Endler JA (1993) Some general comments on the evolution and design of animal communication systems. R Soc Philos Trans Biol Sci 340:215–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flake LD (1973) Food habits of four species of rodents on a short-grass prairie in Colorado. J Mamm 54:636–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frank DH (1989) Spatial organization, social behavior, and mating strategies of the southern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys torridus). Dissertation, Cornell UniversityGoogle Scholar
  16. Gall M, Wilczynski W (2015) Hearing conspecific vocal signals alerts peripheral auditory sensitivity. Proc R Soc B 282:20150749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gall M, Brierley LE, Lucas JR (2011) Species and sex effects on auditory processing in brown-headed cowbirds and red-winged blackbirds. Anim Behav 82:973–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gall M, Brierley LE, Lucas JR (2012) The sender receiver matching hypothesis: support from the peripheral coding of acoustic features in songbirds. J Exp Biol 215:3742–3751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gerhardt HC, Huber F (2002) Acoustic communication in insects and anurans. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Gerhardt HC, Schwarz JJ (2001) Auditory tuning and frequency preferences in anurans. In: Ryan MJ (ed) Anuran communication. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp 73–85Google Scholar
  21. Gerhardt P, Henning Y, Begall S, Malkemper EP (2017) Audiograms of three subterranean rodent species (genus Fukomys) determined by auditory brainstem responses reveal extremely poor high-frequency hearing. J Exp Biol 220:4377–4382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hafner MS, Hafner DJ (1979) Vocalizations of grasshopper mice (Genus Onychomys). J Mamm 60:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hall J (2007) New handbook of auditory evoked responses. Pearson Education, BostonGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanson JL, Hurley LM (2012) Female presence and estrous state influence mouse ultrasonic courtship vocalizations. PLoS One 7:e40782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heffner HE (1980) Hearing in Glires: domestic rabbit, cotton rat, feral house mouse, and kangaroo rat. J Acoust Soc Am 68:1584–1599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heffner HE, Heffner RS (1985) Hearing in two cricetid rodents: wood rat (Neotoma floridana) and grasshopper mouse (Onychomys leucogaster). J Comp Psychol 99:275–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heffner RS, Heffner HE (1988) Sound localization in a predatory rodent, the northern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys leucogaster). J Comp Psychol 102:66–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heffner RS, Heffner HE (1990) Vestigial hearing in a fossorial mammal, the pocket gopher (Geomys bursarius). Hear Res 46:239–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heffner RS, Heffner HE (1992) Hearing and sound localization in blind mole rats (Spalax ehrenbergi). Hear Res 62:206–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heffner HE, Heffner RS (2003) Audition. In: Davis SF (ed) Handbook of research methods in experimental psychology. Blackwell, Malden, pp 413–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Henry KS, Lucas JR (2008) Coevolution of auditory sensitivity and temporal resolution with acoustic signal space in three songbirds. Anim Behav 76:1659–1671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Holmstrom LA, Eeuwes LBM, Roberts PD, Portfors CV (2010) Efficient encoding of vocalizations in the auditory midbrain. J Neurosci 30:802–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jacobson JT (1985) An overview of the auditory brainstem response. In: Jacobson JT (ed) the auditory brainstem response. College-Hill Press, San Diego, pp 3–12Google Scholar
  34. Kalcounis-Rueppell MC, Metheny JD, Vonhof MJ (2006) Production of ultrasonic vocalization by Peromyscus mice in the wild. Front Zool 3:3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Katbamna B, Thodi C, Senturia JB (1996) Auditory-evoked brainstem responses in the torpid deermouse. Physiol Behav 59:189–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. King J, Insanally M, Jin M, Martins ARO, D’amour JA, Froemke RC (2015) Rodent auditory perception: critical band limitations and plasticity. Neuroscience 296:55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Klink KB, Bendig G, Klump GM (2006) Operant methods for mouse psychoacoustics. Behav Res Meth 38:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kobrina A, Dent ML (2016) The effects of aging and sex on detection of ultrasonic vocalizations by adult CBA/CaJ mice (Mus musculus). Hear Res 341:119–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kubke MF, Wild JM (2018) Anatomy of vocal communication and hearing in rodents. In: Dent ML, Fay RR, Popper AN (eds) Rodent bioacoustics, vol 67. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research, Cham, pp 131–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Land R, Burghard A, Kral A (2016) The contribution of inferior colliculus activity to the auditory brainstem response (ABR) in mice. Hear Res 341:109–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lohr B, Dooling RJ (1998) Detection of changes in timbre and harmonicity in complex sounds by zebra finches (Taenipygia undulates) and budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulates). J Comp Psychol 112:36–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lucas JR, Velez A, Henry KS (2015) Habitat-related differences in auditory processing of complex tones and vocal signal properties in four songbirds. J Comp Physiol A 201:395–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Manley GA (1971) Some aspects of the evolution of hearing in vertebrates. Nature 230:506–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Manley GA (2000) Cochlear mechanisms from a phylogenetic viewpoint. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:11736–11743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McNab BK (1963) Bioenergetics and the determination of home range size. Am Nat 97:133–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Miller JR, Engstrom MD (2012) Vocal stereotypy in the rodent genera Peromyscus and Onychomys (Neotominae): taxonomic signature and call design. Bioacous 21:193–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Miranda JA, Shepard KN, McClintock SK, Liu RC (2014) Adult plasticity in the subcortical auditory pathway of the maternal mouse. PLoS One 9:e101630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moreno-Gómez FN, Sueur J, Soto-Gamboa M, Penna M (2013) Female frog auditory sensitivity, male calls, and background noise: potential influences on the evolution of a peculiar matched filter. Biol J Linn Soc 110:814–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Naguib M (1995) Auditory distance assessment of singing conspecifics in Carolina wrens: the role of reverberation and frequency-dependent attenuation. Anim Behav 50:1297–1307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Naguib M (1997) Use of song amplitude for ranging in Carolina wrens, Thryothorus ludvicianus. Ethol 103:723–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Neilans E, Holfoth D, Radziwon K, Portfors C, Dent M (2014) Discrimination of ultrasonic vocalizations by CBA/CaJ mice (Mus musculus) is related to spectrotemporal dissimilarity of vocalizations. PloS One 9:e85405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nelson BS (2000) Avian dependence on sound pressure level as an auditory distance cue. Anim Behav 59:57–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ohlemiller KK, Dahl AR, Gagnon PM (2010) Divergent aging characteristics n CBA/J and CBA/CaJ mouse cochlea. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 11:605–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pasch B, Bolker BM, Phelps SM (2013) Interspecific dominance via vocal interactions mediates altitudinal zonation in Neotropical singing mice. Am Nat 182:E161–E173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pasch B, Abbasi MZ, Wilson M, Zhao D, Searle JB, Webster MS, Rice AN (2016) Cross-fostering alters advertisement vocalizations of grasshopper mice (Onychomys): evidence for the developmental stress hypothesis. Physiol Behav 157:265–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pasch B, Tokuda IT, Riede T (2017) Grasshopper mice employ distinct sound production mechanisms in different social contexts. Proc R Soc B 284:20171158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Peters S, Derryberry EP, Nowicki S (2012) Songbirds learn songs least degraded by environmental transmission. Biol Lett 8:736–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R Core Team (2017) nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R package version 3.1-131Google Scholar
  59. Pinter AJ (1971) Hybridization between two species of grasshopper mice (Onychomys) in the laboratory. J Mamm 52:573–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Portfors CV (2007) Types and functions of ultrasonic vocalizations in laboratory rats and mice. J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 46:28–34Google Scholar
  61. Portfors CV (2018) Processing of ultrasonic vocalizations in the auditory midbrain of mice. In: Brudzynski SM (ed) Handbook of ultrasonic vocalization: a window into the emotional brain (Vol 25). Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Portfors CV, Roberts PD (2014) Mismatch of structural and functional tonotopy for natal sounds in the auditory midbrain. Neuroscience 258:192–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Portfors CV, Mayko ZM, Jonson K, Cha GF, Roberts PD (2011) Spatial organization of receptive fields in the auditory midbrain of awake mouse. Neuroscience 193:429–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
  65. Ralls K (1967) Auditory sensitivity in mice: Peromyscus and Mus musculus. Anim Behav 15:123–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ruebhausen MR, Brozoski TJ, Bauer CA (2012) A comparison of the effects of isoflurane and ketamine anesthesia on auditory brainstem response (ABR) thresholds in rats. Hear Res 287:25–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ruffer DG (1966) Observations on the calls of the grasshopper mouse (Onychomys leucogaster). Ohio J Sci 66:219–220Google Scholar
  68. Ruffer DG (1968) Agonistic behavior of the northern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys leucogaster breviauritus). J Mamm 49:481–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Ryan MJ, Rand AS (1993) Species recognition and sexual selection as a unitary problem in animal communication. Am Nat 47:647–657Google Scholar
  70. Ryan MJ, Perril SA, Wilczynski W (1992) Auditory tuning and call frequency predict population-based mating preferences in the cricket frog, Acris crepitans. Am Nat 139:1370–1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schuchmann M, Siemers BM (2010) Behavioral evidence for community-wide species discrimination from echolocation calls in bats. Am Nat 176:72–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sikes RS, Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists (2016) 2016 Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research and education. J Mamm 97:663–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Simmons AM (2013) ‘‘To ear is human, to frogive is divine’’: Bob Capranica’s legacy to auditory neuroethology. J Comp Phys A 199:169–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stapp P (1999) Size and habitat characteristics of home ranges of northern grasshopper mice (Onychomys leucogaster). Southwest Assoc Nat 44:101–105Google Scholar
  75. Vélez A, Gall MD, Fu J, Lucas JR (2015) Song structure, not high-frequency song content, determines high-frequency auditory sensitivity in nine species of New World sparrows (Passeriformes: Emberizidae). Funct Ecol 29:487–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Von der Emde G, Ruhl T (2016) Matched filtering in African weakly electric fish: two senses with complementary filters. In: Von der Emde G, Warrant E (eds) The ecology of animal senses: matched filters for economical sensing. Springer, New York, pp 237–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Von der Emde G, Warrant E (2016) The ecology of animal senses: matched filters for economical sensing. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. von Uexküll J (1934) A stroll through the worlds of animals and men. In: Schiller CH (ed) Instinctive behavior. International University Press, New York, pp 5–80Google Scholar
  79. Warrant EJ (2016) Matched filtering and the ecology of vision in insects. In: Von der Emde G, Warrant E (eds) The ecology of animal senses: matched filters for economical sensing. Springer, New York, pp 143–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Webster DB, Webster M (1972) Kangaroo rat auditory thresholds before and after middle ear reduction. Brain Behav Evol 5:41–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wehner R (1987) Matched filters—neural models of the external world. J Comp Physiol A 161:511–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wilczynski W, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (2001) Evolution of calls and auditory tuning in the Physalaemus pustulosus species group. Brain Behav Evol 58:137–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wiley RH, Richards DG (1978) Physical constraints on acoustic communication in the atmosphere: implications for the evolution of animal vocalizations. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 3:69–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Willott JF (2006) Measurement of the auditory brainstem response (ABR) to study auditory sensitivity in mice. Curr Protoc Neurosci 34(1):8.21B.1–8.21B.12.  https://doi.org/10.1002/0471142301.ns0821bs34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Woolley SMN, Portfors CV (2013) Conserved mechanisms of vocalization coding in mammalian and songbird auditory midbrain. Hear Res 305:45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zhao L, Wang J, Yang Y, Zhu B, Brauth SE, Tang Y, Cui J (2017) An exception to the matched filter hypothesis: a mismatch of male call frequency and female best hearing frequency in a torrent frog. Ecol Evol 7:419–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zhou X, Jen PH, Seburn KL, Frankel WN, Zheng QY (2006) Auditory brainstem response in 10 inbred strains of mice. Brain Res 1091:16–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zhu B, Wang J, Brauth SE, Tang Y, Cui J (2016) The spectral structure of vocalizations match hearing sensitivity but imprecisely in Philautus odontotarsus. Bioacoustics 26:121–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dana M. Green
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tucker Scolman
    • 1
  • O’neil W. Guthrie
    • 2
    • 3
  • Bret Pasch
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA
  2. 2.Cell and Molecular Pathology Laboratory, Department of Communication Sciences and DisorderNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA
  3. 3.Center for Bioengineering InnovationNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA
  4. 4.Merriam-Powell Center for Environmental ResearchNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA

Personalised recommendations