spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

First published online December 14, 2007
Journal of Experimental Biology 211, 106-113 (2008)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2008
doi: 10.1242/jeb.009688
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bates, M. E.
Right arrow Articles by Simmons, J. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bates, M. E.
Right arrow Articles by Simmons, J. A.

Jamming avoidance response of big brown bats in target detection

Mary E. Bates1,*, Sarah A. Stamper2 and James A. Simmons2

1 Department of Psychology, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, USA
2 Department of Neuroscience, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, USA

* Author for correspondence (e-mail: Mary_Bates{at}brown.edu)

Accepted 30 October 2007

When searching for prey, big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) enhance the range of their sonar by concentrating more energy in the nearly constant-frequency (CF) tail portion of their frequency-modulated (FM) sweeps. We hypothesize that this portion of their signals may be vulnerable to interference from conspecifics using the same frequencies in their own emissions. To determine how bats modify their signals when confronted with an interfering stimulus, we compared the echolocation calls of bats when a CF jamming tone was on and off. The bats performed a two-alternative forced-choice detection task in the laboratory that required the use of echolocation. All three bats shifted the tail-end CF component of their emitted frequency bidirectionally away from the CF jamming stimulus only when the jamming frequency was within 2–3 kHz of the preferred baseline frequency of the bat. The duration of their emissions did not differ between the jamming and no-jamming trials. The jamming avoidance response of bats may serve to avoid masking or interference in a narrow range of frequencies important for target detection.

Key words: echolocating bat, biosonar, jamming avoidance, echo processing






© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2008