Conducting Playback Experiments and Interpreting their Results

  • H. Carl Gerhardt
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 228)


The aim of this chapter is to discuss factors to be considered in the design, execution and interpretation of playback experiments. Most of these factors will be of general concern, even though my examples will be drawn heavily from two-speaker designs with frogs and toads as subjects. I recognise at the outset that many researchers will consider some of these concerns trivial, taking for granted that every researcher will have taken this or that precaution in designing and executing the experiment. My response is that every factor under consideration has detracted from some recent study that I have done myself, that has recently appeared in the literature, or that I have reviewed in manuscript form. More significantly, the precautions that one laboratory routinely takes into consideration are often not even mentioned in the Methods and Materials section of a paper. However, this does not mean that every researcher is aware of the pitfalls, nor does it mean that every laboratory routinely adopts procedures to avoid such pitfalls. I strongly recommend that we adopt the policy of adding enough information to our papers (probably only a few sentences) so that readers are not required to make any assumptions about methodology.


Duty Cycle Pulse Train Sound Pressure Level Credible Interval Harmonic Distortion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Berger, J.O. 1985. Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis. 2nd Edition. Springer-Verlag; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berger, J.O. and Berry, D.A. 1988. Statistical analysis and the illusion of objectivity. Am. Sci., 76, 159–165.Google Scholar
  3. Burstein, H. 1971. Attribute Sampling. Tables and Explanations. McGraw-Hill; New York.Google Scholar
  4. Date, E.M., Lemon, E.R., Weary, D.M. and Richter, A.K. 1991. Species identity by birdsong: discrete or additive information. Anim. Behay., 41, 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dyson, M.L. and Passmore, N.I. 1988. Two-choice phonotaxis in Hyperolius marmoratus (Mura: Hyperoliidae): the effect of temporal variation in presented stimuli. Anim. Behay., 36, 648–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Embleton, T.F.W., Piercy, J.E. and Olson, N. 1976. Outdoor sound propagation over ground of finite impedance. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 59, 267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gerhardt, H.C. 1974a. The significance of some spectral features in mating call recognition in the green treefrog (Hyla cinerea). J. Exp. Biol., 61, 229–241.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Gerhardt, H.C. 1974b. Vocalisations of some hybrid treefrogs: acoustic and behavioral analyses. Behaviour, 49, 130–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gerhardt, H.C. 1978a. Discrimination of intermediate sounds in a synthetic call continuum by female green tree frogs. Science, 199, 1089–1091.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gerhardt, H.C. 1978b. Mating call recognition in the green treefrog (Hyla cinerea): the significance of some fine-temporal properties. J. Exp. Biol., 74, 59–73.Google Scholar
  11. Gerhardt, H.C. 1981. Mating call recognition in the green treefrog (Hyla cinerea): importance of two frequency bands as a function of sound pressure level. J. comp. Physiol. A., 144, 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gerhardt, H.0 1982. Sound pattern recognition in North American treefrogs (Mura: Hylidae): implications for mate choice. Am. Zool., 22, 581–595.Google Scholar
  13. Gerhardt, H.C. 1983. Acoustic communication in treefrogs. Verh. Dtsch. Zool. Ges., 1983, 25–35.Google Scholar
  14. Gerhardt, H.C. 1987. Evolutionary and neurobiological implications of selective phonotaxis in the green treefrog, Hyla cinerea. Anim. Behay., 35, 1479–1489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerhardt, H.C. 1991. Female mate choice in treefrogs: static and dynamic acoustic criteria. Anim. Behay., 42, 615–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerhardt, H.C. and Doherty, J.A. 1988. Acoustic communication in the gray treefrog, Hyla versicolor: evolutionary and neurobiological implications. J. comp. Physiol. A., 162, 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gerhardt, H.C. and Klump, G.M. 1988. Masking of acoustic signals by the chorus background noise in the green treefrog: a limitation on mate choice. Anim. Behay., 36, 1247–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Good, I.J. 1983. Good Thinking: The Foundations of Probability and its Applications. University of Minnesota Press; Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  19. Greenewalt, C.H. 1968. Bird Song: Acoustics and Physiology. Smithsonian Inst. Press; Washington.Google Scholar
  20. Howson, C. and Urbach P. 1989. Scientific Reasoning: the Bayesian Approach. Open Court Publ.; LaSalle, IL.Google Scholar
  21. Howson, C. and Urbach, P. 1991. Bayesian reasoning in science. Nature, 350, 371–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hurlbert, S.H. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol. Monogr., 54, 187–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Issacs, G.L., Christ, D.E., Novick, M.R. and Jackson, P.H. 1984. Tables for Bayesian Statistics. University of Iowa (Iowa Testing Programs, Linguist Center for Measurement, Iowa City).Google Scholar
  24. Lee, P.M. 1989. Bayesian Statistics: An Introduction. Oxford University Press; New York.Google Scholar
  25. Lynch, M. 1991. Methods for the analysis of comparative data in evolutionary biology. Evolution, 45, 1065–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McNamara, J. and Houston, A.I. 1980. The application of statistical decision theory to animal behaviour. J. Theor. Biol., 85, 673–690PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maynard Smith, J. 1991. Theories of sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol., 6, 146–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nelson, D.A. 1988. Feature weighting in species song recognition by the field sparrow (Spizella pusilla). Behaviour, 106, 158–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Novick, M.R. and Jackson, P.H. 1974. Statistical Methods for Educational and Psychological Research. McGraw Hill; New York.Google Scholar
  30. Oldham, R.S. and Gerhardt, H.C. 1975. Behavioral isolation of the treefrogs Hyla cinerea and Hyla gratiosa. Copeia, 1975, 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Piercy, J. E. and Daigle, G.A. 1991. Sound propagation in the open air. In: Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control. (Ed. by C.M. Harris), pp. 3.1–3. 26. McGraw-Hill; New York.Google Scholar
  32. Pollard, W. 1985. Bayesian Statistics for Evaluation Research: An Introduction. Sage Publ., Beverly Hills.Google Scholar
  33. Press, S.J. 1989. Bayesian Statistics: Principles, Models and Applications. Wiley and Sons; New York.Google Scholar
  34. Ratcliffe, L.M. and Grant, P.R. 1983. Species recognition in Darwin’s finches (Geospiza: Gould). II. Geographic variation in mate preference. Anim. Behay., 31, 1154–1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schwartz, J.J. and Gerhardt, H.C. 1989. Spatially mediated release from auditory masking in an anuran amphibian. J. comp. Physiol. A. 166, 37–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Searcy, W.A. and Brenowitz, E.A. 1988. Sexual differences in species recognition of avian song. Nature, 332, 152–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Waage, J.K. 1975. Reproductive isolation and the potential for character displacement in the damselflies, Calopterix maculata and C. aequabilis (Odonata: Calopterygidae). Evolution, 33, 104–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wasserman, M. and Koepfer, H.R. 1977. Character displacement for sexual isolation between Drosophila mojavensis and D. arizonensis. Evolution, 31, 812–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wiley, R.H. and Richards, D.G. 1978. Physical constraints on acoustic communication in the atmosphere: implications for the evolution of animal communication. Behay. Ecol. Sociobiol., 3, 69–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wilkinson, L. 1990. Systat: The System for Statistics. Systat Inc.; Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
  41. Young, I.D. 1991. Introduction to Risk Calculation in Genetic Counseling. Oxford University Press; Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Carl Gerhardt
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Biological SciencesUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations