249
Mensinger 2015 ; Meyer et al. 2010 , 2012 ), and therefore limited understanding of
how they contribute to auditory sensitivity and directional hearing abilities that
should be further explored. Similarly, the relative contribution of the mechanosensory lateral line system to “hearing” thresholds and its overlap in acoustic
sensitivity with the inner ear should be carefully considered when reporting auditory capabilities of different species (see Higgs and Radford, in this volume).
4. Lastly, moving forward, there is a need for studies that examine the relative role
of the auditory system as only one sensory component of a fi sh’s entire perceptual world, or umwelt. Fishes must constantly assess simultaneous incoming
information from multiple sensory channels (auditory, mechanosensory, visual,
chemosensory, somatosensory, vestibular, and in some cases electrosensory) and
integrate it to make context-appropriate behavioral decisions about crucial tasks
related to their survival and reproduction such as when to eat, when to fl ee from
predators, and when to reproduce. Perception of the complex underwater “soundscape,” therefore, represents just one aspect of the multimodal input used for
neural computations, and future work is needed to determine the relative importance of auditory information in mediating different behaviors in all fi shes, the
most diverse and speciose group of vertebrates.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Drs. Richard Fay and Arthur Popper for
their continued inspiration, ideas, mentorship, and encouragement that they have given us as scientists. Our existing knowledge of fi sh bioacoustics and comparative hearing in vertebrates would
be extremely limited without their career-long research progress and leadership. Their valuable
research contributions to the fi eld of fi sh hearing and bioacoustics will continue to inspire both new
research directions and the next generation of scientists. Art Popper’s work has stimulated an
appreciation of the variety and specializations in inner ear morphology and accessory hearing
structures responsible for diverse hearing capabilities among fi shes, with many more discoveries
to be made as the remaining >30,000 species of fi shes are examined. Dick Fay’s work has signifi -
cantly improved our understanding of the neural mechanisms governing auditory perception, temporal and frequency domain processing, effective stimulus for the fi sh auditory system (e.g., use of
shaker table stimulus), directional hearing abilities, and how information is transformed along the
auditory pathway from the endorgan to higher processing centers in the brain. Together, Art and
Dick have also provided invaluable data on auditory capabilities in fi shes for comparison with
those of other vertebrates, and have brought us closer to understanding how fi sh hear, what fi sh
hear, and how they perceive the underwater soundscape they inhabit.
We also thank Tim Tricas for his guidance and insights during different stages of this research.
Funding was provided in part by an NSF Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant (IBN 04-08197
to KPM). We also thank University of Hawaii at Manoa, Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology,
University of Washington, and Louisiana State University for support during different phases of
this work.
References
Adrian ED, Craik KJW, Strudy RS (1938) The electrical response of the auditory mechanism in
cold-blooded vertebrates. Proc R Soc Lond B 125:435–455
Akamatsu T, Okumura T, Novarini N, Yan HY (2002) Empirical refi nements applicable to the
recording of fi sh sounds in small tanks. J Acoust Soc Am 112:3073–3082
Comparison of Electrophysiological Auditory Measures in Fishes
Mensinger 2015 ; Meyer et al. 2010 , 2012 ), and therefore limited understanding of
how they contribute to auditory sensitivity and directional hearing abilities that
should be further explored. Similarly, the relative contribution of the mechanosensory lateral line system to “hearing” thresholds and its overlap in acoustic
sensitivity with the inner ear should be carefully considered when reporting auditory capabilities of different species (see Higgs and Radford, in this volume).
4. Lastly, moving forward, there is a need for studies that examine the relative role
of the auditory system as only one sensory component of a fi sh’s entire perceptual world, or umwelt. Fishes must constantly assess simultaneous incoming
information from multiple sensory channels (auditory, mechanosensory, visual,
chemosensory, somatosensory, vestibular, and in some cases electrosensory) and
integrate it to make context-appropriate behavioral decisions about crucial tasks
related to their survival and reproduction such as when to eat, when to fl ee from
predators, and when to reproduce. Perception of the complex underwater “soundscape,” therefore, represents just one aspect of the multimodal input used for
neural computations, and future work is needed to determine the relative importance of auditory information in mediating different behaviors in all fi shes, the
most diverse and speciose group of vertebrates.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Drs. Richard Fay and Arthur Popper for
their continued inspiration, ideas, mentorship, and encouragement that they have given us as scientists. Our existing knowledge of fi sh bioacoustics and comparative hearing in vertebrates would
be extremely limited without their career-long research progress and leadership. Their valuable
research contributions to the fi eld of fi sh hearing and bioacoustics will continue to inspire both new
research directions and the next generation of scientists. Art Popper’s work has stimulated an
appreciation of the variety and specializations in inner ear morphology and accessory hearing
structures responsible for diverse hearing capabilities among fi shes, with many more discoveries
to be made as the remaining >30,000 species of fi shes are examined. Dick Fay’s work has signifi -
cantly improved our understanding of the neural mechanisms governing auditory perception, temporal and frequency domain processing, effective stimulus for the fi sh auditory system (e.g., use of
shaker table stimulus), directional hearing abilities, and how information is transformed along the
auditory pathway from the endorgan to higher processing centers in the brain. Together, Art and
Dick have also provided invaluable data on auditory capabilities in fi shes for comparison with
those of other vertebrates, and have brought us closer to understanding how fi sh hear, what fi sh
hear, and how they perceive the underwater soundscape they inhabit.
We also thank Tim Tricas for his guidance and insights during different stages of this research.
Funding was provided in part by an NSF Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant (IBN 04-08197
to KPM). We also thank University of Hawaii at Manoa, Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology,
University of Washington, and Louisiana State University for support during different phases of
this work.
References
Adrian ED, Craik KJW, Strudy RS (1938) The electrical response of the auditory mechanism in
cold-blooded vertebrates. Proc R Soc Lond B 125:435–455
Akamatsu T, Okumura T, Novarini N, Yan HY (2002) Empirical refi nements applicable to the
recording of fi sh sounds in small tanks. J Acoust Soc Am 112:3073–3082
Comparison of Electrophysiological Auditory Measures in Fishes