chorus of vocalizing conspecifics by focusing on particular acoustic features
of their calls. These acoustic features may provide an indication of an individual male’s vigor or quality as a mate.
Male bullfrogs emit advertisement calls not only to attract females for
mating but also to announce their occupation of a territory to neighboring
males. Because calling is such an energetically costly activity, males might
develop certain rules regulating their vocal output and interactions with
vocally competing males (Boatright-Horowitz et al. 2000). These rules
might involve psychological processes of habituation and learning. Production of calls also requires an underlying hormonally sensitive mechanism of
laryngeal control. The auditory systems of both the male sender and the
female receiver must process the male’s vocal signals in order for detection,
discrimination, and identification to occur. These mechanisms might involve
specialized “mating call detectors” (Capranica and Moffat 1983) or they
might be an adaptation of some more general neural processing strategy
not unique to frogs or their particular communication system.
The use of sounds for communication, from mate calling in frogs to
speech in humans, is widespread among vertebrate animals. As the example
above shows, even the frog’s acoustic communication is a complex process
both behaviorally and physiologically. The focus of this book is to analyze
the communicative use of audition in nonhuman vertebrate animals from
the interdisciplinary perspective of neuroethology. Neuroethology attempts
to unravel the physiological underpinnings of complex, species-typical
behavior within a broad evolutionary framework. All chapters in this
volume share as their common theme such a neuroethological perspective
on acoustic communication. In doing so, they span multiple levels of inquiry,
from single-unit recordings to phylogenetic analysis. Moreover, they are not
limited to discussing data from only one group of animals but seek to derive
common principles of communication from comparisons of a wide range of
vertebrate species. Even though the focus of this volume is on vertebrates,
several chapters include relevant comparisons with invertebrate animals.
Due to space limitations, acoustic communication by speech in humans is
not discussed.
This volume complements and extends the comparative approach to
hearing outlined in previous volumes in this series (Fay and Popper 1994,
1999; Hoy et al. 1998; Dooling et al. 2001b). Chapters in these earlier
volumes examined the acoustic capabilities of animals primarily in terms of
psychophysical limits on auditory performance (Brown 1994; Long 1994;
Stebbins and Moody 1994; Moss and Schnitzler 1995; Simmons et al. 1995;
Fay and Simmons 1999; Dooling et al. 2001a). In laboratory psychophysical
experiments, social and environmental influences on perception are necessarily excluded from analysis, and detection of simplified stimuli with welldefined acoustic parameters is emphasized. The psychophysical approach
contributes crucial information about the sensory limitations that constrain
perception of sounds but does not directly address the interactions between
2
A.M. Simmons
of their calls. These acoustic features may provide an indication of an individual male’s vigor or quality as a mate.
Male bullfrogs emit advertisement calls not only to attract females for
mating but also to announce their occupation of a territory to neighboring
males. Because calling is such an energetically costly activity, males might
develop certain rules regulating their vocal output and interactions with
vocally competing males (Boatright-Horowitz et al. 2000). These rules
might involve psychological processes of habituation and learning. Production of calls also requires an underlying hormonally sensitive mechanism of
laryngeal control. The auditory systems of both the male sender and the
female receiver must process the male’s vocal signals in order for detection,
discrimination, and identification to occur. These mechanisms might involve
specialized “mating call detectors” (Capranica and Moffat 1983) or they
might be an adaptation of some more general neural processing strategy
not unique to frogs or their particular communication system.
The use of sounds for communication, from mate calling in frogs to
speech in humans, is widespread among vertebrate animals. As the example
above shows, even the frog’s acoustic communication is a complex process
both behaviorally and physiologically. The focus of this book is to analyze
the communicative use of audition in nonhuman vertebrate animals from
the interdisciplinary perspective of neuroethology. Neuroethology attempts
to unravel the physiological underpinnings of complex, species-typical
behavior within a broad evolutionary framework. All chapters in this
volume share as their common theme such a neuroethological perspective
on acoustic communication. In doing so, they span multiple levels of inquiry,
from single-unit recordings to phylogenetic analysis. Moreover, they are not
limited to discussing data from only one group of animals but seek to derive
common principles of communication from comparisons of a wide range of
vertebrate species. Even though the focus of this volume is on vertebrates,
several chapters include relevant comparisons with invertebrate animals.
Due to space limitations, acoustic communication by speech in humans is
not discussed.
This volume complements and extends the comparative approach to
hearing outlined in previous volumes in this series (Fay and Popper 1994,
1999; Hoy et al. 1998; Dooling et al. 2001b). Chapters in these earlier
volumes examined the acoustic capabilities of animals primarily in terms of
psychophysical limits on auditory performance (Brown 1994; Long 1994;
Stebbins and Moody 1994; Moss and Schnitzler 1995; Simmons et al. 1995;
Fay and Simmons 1999; Dooling et al. 2001a). In laboratory psychophysical
experiments, social and environmental influences on perception are necessarily excluded from analysis, and detection of simplified stimuli with welldefined acoustic parameters is emphasized. The psychophysical approach
contributes crucial information about the sensory limitations that constrain
perception of sounds but does not directly address the interactions between
2
A.M. Simmons