Abstract
The auditory system of frogs and toads differs between sexes, seasons, and reproductive state in a way that suggests a strong influence of reproductive steroid hormones on hearing. Although few studies have measured auditory response properties after manipulating testosterone or estrogen, those that have done so have shown that sex steroid hormones increase the sensitivity and response strength of the auditory system in adult anurans in a way that enhances the ability of the auditory system to detect and respond to the vocal signals that guide reproductive social behavior in these vertebrates. For males, this could translate into increased calling as they compete with other males, and, for females, into a change in their detection and assessment of male advertisement calls as they search for mates. Furthermore, hearing conspecific calls increases circulating sex steroid hormones in both males and females, suggesting that the acoustic context found during a frog’s breeding season could modify the properties of its auditory system through hormonal modulation. As a result of the reciprocal interaction of hearing and hormones, the auditory system of anurans is not fixed but varies in its sensitivity, response strength, and potentially in more complex aspects of auditory coding, as the levels of testosterone and estrogen change with season, reproductive state, and the acoustic influence of other calling frogs.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aitken, P. G., & Capranica, R. R. (1984). Auditory input to a vocal nucleus in the frog Rana pipiens: Hormonal and seasonal effects. Experimental Brain Research, 57(1), 33–39. doi:10.1007/BF00231129.
Arch, V. S., & Narins, P. M. (2009). Sexual hearing: The influence of sex hormones on acoustic communication in frogs. Hearing Research, 252(1–2), 15–20. doi:10.1016/j.heares.2009.01.001.
Bernal, X. E., Rand, A. S., & Ryan, M. J. (2007). Sex differences in response to nonconspecific advertisement calls: Receiver permissiveness in male and female túngara frogs. Animal Behaviour, 73(6), 955–964. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.10.018.
Björnström, L., & Sjöberg, M. (2005). Mechanisms of estrogen receptor signaling: Convergence of genomic and nongenomic actions on target genes. Molecular Endocrinology, 19(4), 833–842. doi:10.1210/me.2004-0486.
Bosch, J., & Boyero, L. (2004). Reproductive stage and phonotactic preferences of female midwife toads (Alytes cisternasii). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 55(3), 251–256. doi:10.1007/s00265-003-0699-8.
Buerkle, N. P., Schrode, K. M., & Bee, M. A. (2014). Assessing stimulus and subject influences on auditory evoked potentials and their relation to peripheral physiology in green treefrogs (Hyla cinerea). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology, 178, 68–81.
Burmeister, S., & Wilczynski, W. (2000). Social signals influence hormones independently of calling behavior in the treefrog (Hyla cinerea). Hormones and Behavior, 38(4), 201–209. doi:10.1006/hbeh.2000.1605.
Burmeister, S. S., & Wilczynski, W. (2005). Social signals regulate gonadotropin-releasing hormone neurons in the green treefrog. Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 65(1), 26–32. doi:10.1159/000081108.
Capranica, R. R., & Moffat, A. J. M. (1983). Neurobehavioral correlates of sound communication in anurans. In J. P. Ewert & R. R. Capranica (Eds.), Advances in vertebrate neuroethology (pp. 701–730). New York: Plenum Press.
Caras, M. L. (2013). Estrogenic modulation of auditory processing: A vertebrate comparison. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 34(4), 285–299. doi:10.1016/j.yfrne.2013.07.006.
Chakraborty, M., & Burmeister, S. S. (2009). Estradiol induces sexual behavior in female túngara frogs. Hormones and Behavior, 55(1), 106–112. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2008.09.001.
Chakraborty, M., & Burmeister, S. S. (2010). Sexually dimorphic androgen and estrogen receptor mRNA expression in the brain of túngara frogs. Hormones and Behavior, 58(4), 619–627. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2010.06.013.
Chakraborty, M., & Burmeister, S. S. (2015). Effects of estradiol on neural responses to social signals in female túngara frogs. Journal of Experimental Biology, 218, 3671–3677.
Corey, D., & Hudspeth, A. (1983). Kinetics of the receptor current in bullfrog saccular hair cells. Journal of Neuroscience, 3(5), 962–976.
Davis, A. G., & Leary, C. J. (2015). Elevated stress hormone diminishes the strength of female preferences for acoustic signals in the green treefrog. Hormones and Behavior, 69, 119–122. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2015.01.005.
Elliott, T. M., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., & Kelley, D. B. (2011). Temporally selective processing of communication signals by auditory midbrain neurons. Journal of Neurophysiology, 105(4), 1620–1632. doi:10.1152/jn.00261.2009.
Endepols, H., & Walkowiak, W. (2001). Integration of ascending and descending inputs in the auditory midbrain of anurans. Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology, 186(12), 1119–1133. doi:10.1007/s003590000159.
Feng, A. S., Narins, P. M., & Capranica, R. R. (1975). Three populations of primary auditory fibers in the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana): Their peripheral origins and frequency sensitivities. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 100(3), 221–229. doi:10.1007/BF00614532.
Gall, M. D., & Wilczynski, W. (2014). Prior experience with conspecific signals enhances auditory midbrain responsiveness to conspecific vocalizations. Journal of Experimental Biology, 217(11), 1977–1982.
Gall, M. D., & Wilczynski, W. (2015). Hearing conspecific vocal signals alters peripheral auditory sensitivity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 282(1808). doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.0749.
Gall, M. D., Salameh, T. S., & Lucas, J. R. (2013). Songbird frequency selectivity and temporal resolution vary with sex and season. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 280(1751), 20122296. doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.2296.
Gerhardt, H. C. (1974). The significance of some spectral features in mating call recognition in the green treefrog (Hyla cinerea). Journal of Experimental Biology, 61, 229–241.
Gerhardt, H. C. (1976). Significance of two frequency bands in long distance vocal communication in the green treefrog. Nature, 261, 692–694.
Gerhardt, H. C., & Huber, F. (2002). Acoustic communication in insects and anurans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goense, J. B. M., & Feng, A. S. (2005). Seasonal changes in frequency tuning and temporal processing in single neurons in the frog auditory midbrain. Journal of Neurobiology, 65, 22–36.
Gordon, N. M., & Gerhardt, H. C. (2009). Hormonal modulation of phonotaxis and advertisement-call preferences in the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor). Hormones and Behavior, 55(1), 121–127. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2008.09.007.
Hetherington, T. E. (1994). Sexual differences in the tympanic frequency responses of the American bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana). The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 96(2), 1186–1188. doi:10.1121/1.410326.
Hillary, C. M. (1984). Seasonality of two midbrain auditory responses in the treefrog, Hyla chrysoscelis. Copeia, 1984(4), 844–852.
Höglund, J., & Alatalo, R. V. (1995). Leks. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hoke, K. L., & Pitts, N. L. (2012). Modulation of sensory–motor integration as a general mechanism for context dependence of behavior. General and Comparative Endocrinology, 176(3), 465–471. doi:10.1016/j.ygcen.2012.02.014.
Hoke, K. L., Ryan, M. J., & Wilczynski, W. (2008). Candidate neural locus for sex differences in reproductive decisions. Biology Letters, 4(5), 518–521. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2008.0192.
Hudspeth, A. J., & Lewis, R. S. (1988). A model for electrical resonance and frequency tuning in saccular hair cells of the bull-frog, Rana catesbeiana. Journal of Physiology, 400(1), 275–297. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.1988.sp017120.
Kelley, D. B. (1980). Auditory and vocal nuclei in the frog brain concentrate sex hormones. Science, 207(4430), 553–555.
Kelley, D. B., Lieberburg, I., McEwen, B. S., & Pfaff, D. W. (1978). Autoradiographic and biochemical studies of steroid hormone-concentrating cells in the brain of Rana pipiens. Brain Research, 140(2), 287–305. doi:10.1016/0006-8993(78)90461-4.
Lea, J., Halliday, T., & Dyson, M. (2000). Reproductive stage and history affect the phonotactic preferences of female midwife toads, Alytes muletensis. Animal Behaviour, 60(4), 423–427. doi:10.1006/anbe.2000.1482.
Leary, C. J. (2009). Hormones and acoustic communication in anuran amphibians. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 49(4), 452–470.
Leary, C. J., Edwards, C. J., & Rose, G. J. (2008). Midbrain auditory neurons integrate excitation and inhibition to generate duration selectivity: An in vivo whole-cell patch study in anurans. Journal of Neuroscience, 28(21), 5481–5493.
Lewis, E. R., & Lombard, R. E. (1988). The amphibian inner ear. In B. Fritzsch, W. Walkowiak, M. J. Ryan, W. Wilczynski, & T. Heatherington (Eds.), The evolution of the amphibian auditory system (pp. 93–123). New York: Wiley.
Liu, W.-R., Shen, J.-X., Zhang, Y.-J., Xu, Z.-M., Qi, Z., & Xue, M.-Q. (2014). Auditory sexual difference in the large odorous frog Odorrana graminea. Journal of Comparative Physiology. A, Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology, 200(4), 311–316. doi:10.1007/s00359-014-0885-3.
Lutterschmidt, D. I., & Wilczynski, W. (2012). Sexually dimorphic effects of melatonin on brain arginine vasotocin immunoreactivity in green treefrogs (Hyla cinerea). Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 80(3), 222–232. doi:10.1159/000341238000341238.
Lynch, K. S., & Wilczynski, W. (2005). Gonadal steroids vary with reproductive stage in a tropically breeding female anuran. General and Comparative Endocrinology, 143(1), 51–56. doi:10.1016/j.ygcen.2005.02.023.
Lynch, K. S., & Wilczynski, W. (2006). Social regulation of plasma estradiol concentration in a female anuran. Hormones and Behavior, 50(1), 101–106. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2006.01.010.
Lynch, K. S., & Wilczynski, W. (2008). Reproductive hormones modify reception of species-typical communication signals in a female anuran. Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 71(2), 143–150. doi:10.1159/000111460.
Lynch, K. S., Crews, D., Ryan, M. J., & Wilczynski, W. (2006). Hormonal state influences aspects of female mate choice in the túngara frog (Physalaemus pustulosus). Hormones and Behavior, 49(4), 450–457. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2005.10.001.
Mangiamele, L. A., & Burmeister, S. S. (2011). Auditory selectivity for acoustic features that confer species recognition in the túngara frog. Journal of Experimental Biology, 214(17), 2911–2918.
Mason, M. J., Lin, C. C., & Narins, P. M. (2003). Sex differences in the middle ear of the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana). Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 61(2), 91–101.
McClelland, B. E., Wilczynski, W., & Rand, A. S. (1997). Sexual dimorphism and species differences in the neurophysiology and morphology of the acoustic communication system of two neotropical hylids. Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology, 180(5), 451–462.
Miranda, J. A., & Wilczynski, W. (2009a). Sex differences and androgen influences on midbrain auditory thresholds in the green treefrog, Hyla cinerea. Hearing Research, 252(1–2), 79–88. doi:10.1016/j.heares.2009.04.004.
Miranda, J. A., & Wilczynski, W. (2009b). Female reproductive state influences the auditory midbrain response. Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology, 195(4), 341–349. doi:10.1007/s00359-008-0410-7.
Narins, P. M. (2001). Ectothermy’s last stand: Hearing in the heat and cold. In M. J. Ryan (Ed.), Anuran communication (pp. 61–70). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Narins, P. M., & Capranica, R. R. (1976). Sexual difference in the auditory system of the treefrog Eleutherodactylus coqui. Science, 192, 378–380.
O’Connell, L. A., Ding, J. H., Ryan, M. J., & Hofmann, H. A. (2011). Neural distribution of the nuclear progesterone receptor in the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy, 41(3), 137–147. doi:10.1016/j.jchemneu.2011.01.002.
Penna, M., Capranica, R. R., & Somers, J. (1992). Hormone-induced vocal behavior and midbrain auditory sensitivity in the green treefrog, Hyla cinerea. Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology, 170(1), 73–82. doi:10.1007/BF00190402.
Ponnath, A., & Farris, H. E. (2014). Sound-by-sound thalamic stimulation modulates midbrain auditory excitability and relative binaural sensitivity in frogs. Frontiers in Neural Circuits, 8, 85. doi:10.3389/fncir.2014.00085.
Roberts, W., Jacobs, R., & Hudspeth, A. (1990). Colocalization of ion channels involved in frequency selectivity and synaptic transmission at presynaptic active zones of hair cells. Journal of Neuroscience, 10(11), 3664–3684.
Ryan, M. J., & Rand, A. S. (1995). Female responses to ancestral advertisement calls in the túngara frog. Science 269, 390–392.
Schrode, K., Buerkle, N., Brittan-Powell, E., & Bee, M. (2014). Auditory brainstem responses in Cope’s gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis): Effects of frequency, level, sex and size. Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology, 200(3), 221–238. doi:10.1007/s00359-014-0880-8.
Shen, J.-X., Xu, Z.-M., Yu, Z.-L., Wang, S., Zheng, D.-Z., & Fan, S.-C. (2011). Ultrasonic frogs show extraordinary sex differences in auditory frequency sensitivity. Nature Communications, 2, 342. http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v2/n6/suppinfo/ncomms1339_S1.html.
Simmons, A. (2013). “To ear is human, to forgive is divine”: Bob Capranica’s legacy to auditory neuroethology. Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology, 199(3), 169–182. doi:10.1007/s00359-012-0786-2.
Simmons, D. D., Meenderink, S. W. F., & Vassilakis, P. N. (2007). Anatomy, physiology, and function of the auditory end-organs in the frog inner ear. In P. M. Narins, A. S. Feng, R. R. Fay, & A. N. Popper (Eds.), Hearing and sound communication in amphibians (pp. 184–220). New York: Springer.
Smotherman, M. S., & Narins, P. M. (2000). Hair cells, hearing and hopping: A field guide to hair cell physiology in the frog. Journal of Experimental Biology, 203(15), 2237–2246.
Walkowiak, W. (1980). The coding of auditory signals in the torus semicircularis of the fire-bellied toad and the grass frog: Responses to simple stimuli and to conspecific calls. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 138(2), 131–148. doi:10.1007/BF00680437.
Wells, K. D. (1977). The social behaviour of anuran amphibians. Animal Behaviour, 25, 666–693.
Wells, K. D. (2007). The ecology and behavior of amphibians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wilczynski, W. (1986). Sexual differences in neural tuning and their effect on active space. Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 28(1-3), 83–94.
Wilczynski, W., & Capranica, R. R. (1984). The auditory system of anuran amphibians. Progress in Neurobiology, 22(1), 1–38.
Wilczynski, W., & Endepols, H. (2007). Central auditory pathways in anuran amphibians: The anatomical basis of hearing and sound communication. In P. M. Narins, A. S. Feng, R. R. Fay, & A. N. Popper (Eds.), Hearing and sound communication in amphibians (pp. 221–249). New York: Springer.
Wilczynski, W., & Ryan, M. J. (2010). The behavioral neuroscience of anuran social signal processing. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 20(6), 754–763. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2010.08.021.
Wilczynski, W., Keddy-Hector, A. C., & Ryan, M. J. (1992). Call patterns and basilar papilla tuning in cricket frogs. I. Differences among populations and between sexes. Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 39(4), 229–237.
Wilczynski, W., Lynch, K. S., & O’Bryant, E. L. (2005). Current research in amphibians: Studies integrating endocrinology, behavior, and neurobiology. Hormones and Behavior, 48(4), 440–450. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2005.06.001.
Yang, E.-J., Nasipak, B. T., & Kelley, D. B. (2007). Direct action of gonadotropin in brain integrates behavioral and reproductive functions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 104(7), 2477–2482.
Yovanof, S., & Feng, A. S. (1983). Effects of estradiol on auditory evoked responses from the frog’s auditory midbrain. Neuroscience Letters, 36, 291–297.
Zakon, H., & Wilczynski, W. (1988). The physiology of the anuran eighth nerve. In B. Fritzsch, W. Walkowiak, M. J. Ryan, W. Wilczynski, & T. Heatherington (Eds.), The evolution of the amphibian auditory system (pp. 125–155). New York: Wiley.
Zhang, D., Cui, J., & Tang, Y. (2012). Plasticity of peripheral auditory frequency sensitivity in Emei music frog. PLoS ONE, 7(9), e45792. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0045792.
Zornik, E., & Kelley, D. B. (2011). A neuroendocrine basis for the hierarchical control of frog courtship vocalizations. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 32(3), 353–366. doi:10.1016/j.yfrne.2010.12.006.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wilczynski, W., Burmeister, S.S. (2016). Effects of Steroid Hormones on Hearing and Communication in Frogs. In: Bass, A., Sisneros, J., Popper, A., Fay, R. (eds) Hearing and Hormones. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research, vol 57. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26597-1_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26597-1_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-26595-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-26597-1
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)