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 August 9, 2007
Journal of Experimental Biology 210, 2836-2842 (2007)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2007
doi: 10.1242/jeb.003988
This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
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 Elliott, T. M.
Right arrow Articles by Kelley, D. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Elliott, T. M.
Right arrow Articles by Kelley, D. B.

Male discrimination of receptive and unreceptive female calls by temporal features

Taffeta M. Elliott1,* and Darcy B. Kelley1,2

1 Neurobiology and Behavior, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
2 Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA


Figure 1
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 1. (A) Distribution of interclick intervals (ICIs) from natural bouts of ticking and rapping. Black arrows (top) indicate the click rates of stimuli used in the labeling experiment. Gray arrows show click rates used in the dishabituation experiment. (Modified from Tobias et al. 1998Go.) (B) Oscillogram showing a typical 1 s selection from the field recording of ticking that provided the clicks used to make playback stimuli. Scale bar, 100 ms. (C) Oscillogram of a 1 s sample of the fastest female call used as a playback stimulus. This stimulus consists of ticking clicks presented at the 81 ms ICI of rapping. Scale bar, 100 ms.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (7K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 2. Schematic design of the labeling boundary experiment. The example protocol shows one possible experimental sequence of a male tested on the first two nights of the block with the first intermediate test stimulus. Scale bar, 5.5 min.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 3. (A) Schematic protocol of the dishabituation experiment. Each night, two introductory trials (not shown) were terminated after 30 s of suppression of male calling by the initial ticking stimuli. The top dark gray bar shows the temporal extent of the stimulus, with either a continuation or a switch to another stimulus (broken line, test trial). Lower solid gray bars show the relative timing of male advertisement and subsequent calling. The second bar becomes broken to show the time during which habituated advertisement calling was evaluated for post-stimulus-switch change, or dishabituation. ICI, interclick interval; TTH, time to habituation; TTS, time to suppression. (B) Example of a habituated bout of advertisement calling under a test condition. The male had been suppressed for approximately 4 min prior to habituation. The arrow marks the time point that the 180 ms ICI stimulus was changed to the 219 ms ICI. The bout was followed by 30 s of silence (not shown) while the 219 ms ICI stimulus continued to play. The loudest slow-trill clicks are clipped because of the male moving close to the hydrophone. On this time scale, the peaks of the fast-trill clicks cannot be easily separated by eye because the clicks overlap.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 4. Mean and standard error of time spent calling in response to each playback stimulus during the three testing blocks (A-C). Horizontal lines indicate which columns are significantly different (P<0.05, RM-ANOVA, Fisher's PLSD). (A) The response to the fastest intermediate stimulus (98 ms ICI) was significantly greater than the response to the ticking stimuli (219 ms ICI) presented during the same block. (B) Calling to the middle intermediate stimulus (120 ms ICI) was not significantly different from calling to the other two stimuli presented on the same nights (219 and 180 ms ICI). (C) The slowest intermediate stimulus (160 ms ICI) elicited calling that was significantly lower than calling to rapping stimuli (81 ms ICI) heard on the same nights.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 5. There was no significant effect of the preceding stimulus on time spent calling to the three intermediate click-rate test stimuli (t-test rejected at the P>0.05 level) in the labeling boundary experiment. Boxplots represent the median, interquartile range (box), 10th and 90th percentiles (whiskers), and outliers (dots).

 

Figure 6
View larger version (7K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 6. Time to suppression (TTS) and time to habituation (TTH) during the two stimuli 180 ms ICI and 219 ms ICI. Boxplots show median, interquartile ranges (boxes), and 10th to 90th percentile range (whiskers), with outliers (dots).

 




© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2007