Advertisement

Journal of Comparative Physiology A

, Volume 205, Issue 6, pp 839–846 | Cite as

Level-dependent masking of the auditory evoked responses in a dolphin: manifestation of the compressive nonlinearity

  • Vladimir V. PopovEmail author
  • Dmitry I. Nechaev
  • Evgenia V. Sysueva
  • Alexander Ya. Supin
Original Paper

Abstract

At suprathreshold sound levels, interactions between masking noise and sound signals are liable to compressive nonlinearity in the auditory system. The compressive nonlinearity is a property of the “active” cochlear mechanism. It is not known whether this mechanism is capable to function at frequencies close to or above 100 kHz that are available to odontocetes (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises). This question may be answered by the use of the frequency-specific masking. Auditory evoked potentials to sound stimuli in a bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, were recorded in the presence of simultaneous maskers. Stimulus frequencies were 45, 64, or 90 kHz. Maskers were on-frequency bandlimited noise or low-frequency noise of frequencies 0.25–1 oct below the stimulus frequency. The stimuli provoked responses as a series of brain-potential waves following the pip-train rate. For the on-frequency masker, the masker level at threshold dependence on the signal level was 1.1 dB/dB. For maskers of 1 oct below the stimulus, the dependence was 0.53–0.57 dB/dB. The data considered evidence for the compressive nonlinearity of responses to stimuli, and therefore, are indicative of the functioning of the active mechanism at frequencies up to 90 kHz.

Keywords

Dolphin Masking Compressive nonlinearity Auditory evoked potentials 

Abbreviations

AEP

Auditory evoked potential

MLT

Masker level at threshold

RFR

Rate following response

RMS

Root-mean-square

SPL

Sound pressure level

Notes

Acknowledgements

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. The study was supported by the Russian Science Foundation (Grant # 17-74-20107 to EVS).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Au WWL (1993) The sonar of dolphins. Springer-Verlag, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Au WWL, Hastings MC (2008) Principles of marine bioacoustics. Springer-Science, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Au WWL, Moore PWB (1990) Critical ratio and critical band width for the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin. J Acoust Soc Am 88:1635–1638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bacon SP, Boden LN, Lee J, Repovsch JL (1999) Growth of simultaneous masking for fm < fs: effects of overall frequency and level. J Acoust Soc Am 196:341–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cooper NL (2004) Compression in the peripheral auditory system. In: Bacon SP, Fay RR, Popper AN (eds) Compression: from cochlea to cochlear implants. Springer, New York, pp 18–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Finneran JJ, Schlundt CE, Carder DA, Ridgway SH (2002) Auditory filter shapes for the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and the white whale (Delphinapterus leucas) derived with notched noise. J Acoust Soc Am 112:322–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frank G, Hemmert W, Gummer AW (1999) Limiting dynamics of high-frequency electromechanical transduction of outer hair cells. Proc Nat Acad Sci 96:4420–4425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Glasberg BR, Moore BCJ (1990) Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notch-noise data. Hearing Res 47:103–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glasberg BR, Moore BCJ (2000) Frequency selectivity as a function of level and frequency measured with uniformly exciting notched noise. J Acoust Soc Am 108:2318–2328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Johnson CS (1971) Auditory masking of one pure tone by another in the bottlenosed porpoise. J Acoust Soc Am 49:1317–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Klishin VO, Popov VV, Supin AYa (2000) Hearing capabilities of a beluga whale, Delphinapterus leucas. Aquat Mamm 26:212–228Google Scholar
  12. Lemonds DW, Au WWL, Vlachos SA, Nachtigall PE (2012) High-frequency auditory filter shape for the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin. J Acoust Soc Am 132:1222–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lemonds DW, Kloepper LN, Nachtigall PE, Au WWL, Vlachos SA, Branstetter BK (2011) A re-evaluation of auditory filter shape in delphinid odontocetes: Evidence of constant-bandwidth filters. J Acoust Soc Am 130:3107–3114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lopez-Poveda EA, Plack CJ, Meddis R (2003) Cochlear nonlinearity between 500 and 8000 Hz in listeners with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 113:951–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nelson DA, Schroder AC, Wojtczak M (2001) A new procedure for measuring peripheral compression in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 110:2045–2064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Oxenham AJ, Plack CJ (1977) A behavioral measure of basilar-membrane nonlinearity in listeners with normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 101:3666–3675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Popov VV, Klishin VO (1998) EEG study of hearing in the common dolphin, Delphinus delphis. Aquat Mamm 24:13–20Google Scholar
  18. Popov VV, Nechaev DI, Supin AYa, Sysueva EV (2018) Adaptation processes in the auditory system of a beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas. PLoS One 13(7):e0201121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Popov VV, Supin AYa, Klishin VO (1996) Frequency tuning curves of the dolphin’s hearing: Envelope-following response study. J Comp Physiol A 178:571–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Popov VV, Supin AYa, Wang D, Wang K (2006) Nonconstant quality of auditory filters in the porpoises, Phocoena phocoena and Neophocaena phocaenoides (Cetacea, Phocoenidae). J Acoust Soc Am 119:3173–3180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Popov VV, Sysueva EV, Nechaev DI, Rozhnov VV, Supin AYa (2016) Auditory evoked potentials in the auditory system of a beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas to prolonged sound stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am 139:1101–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Popov VV, Sysueva EV, Nechaev DI, Rozhnov VV, Supin AYa (2017) Influence of fatiguing noise on auditory evoked responses to stimuli of various levels in a beluga whale, Delphinapterus leucas. J Exp Biol 220:1090–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Robles L, Ruggero MA (2001) Mechanics of the mammalian cochlea. Physiol Rev 81:1305–1352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Robles L, Ruggero MA, Rich NC (1986) Basilar membrane mechanics at the base of the chinchilla cochlea. I. Input–output functions, tuning curves, and response phases. J Acoust Soc Am 80:1364–1374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Supin AY, Popov VV (2007) Improved techniques of evoked-potential audiometry in odontocetes. Aquat Mamm 33:14–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Supin AYa, Popov VV, Klishin VO (1993) ABR frequency tuning curves in dolphins. J Comp Physiol A 173:649–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Supin AY, Popov VV, Mass AM (2001) The sensory physiology of aquatic mammals. Kluwer, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sysueva EV, Nechaev DI, Popov VV, Supin AYa (2014) Frequency tuning of hearing in the beluga whale: discrimination of rippled spectra. J Acoust Soc Am 135:963–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Ecology and EvolutionRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations