4.3 Article

Stereotypic Laryngeal and Respiratory Motor Patterns Generate Different Call Types in Rat Ultrasound Vocalization

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jez.1785

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. University of Utah [VP528]
  2. NIH [R01-DC-006876, R01-DC-008612]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rodents produce highly variable ultrasound whistles as communication signals unlike many other mammals, who employ flow-induced vocal fold oscillations to produce sound. The role of larynx muscles in controlling sound features across different call types in ultrasound vocalization (USV) was investigated using laryngeal muscle electromyographic (EMG) activity, subglottal pressure measurements and vocal sound output in awake and spontaneously behaving SpragueDawley rats. Results support the hypothesis that glottal shape determines fundamental frequency. EMG activities of thyroarytenoid and cricothyroid muscles were aligned with call duration. EMG intensity increased with fundamental frequency. Phasic activities of both muscles were aligned with fast changing fundamental frequency contours, for example in trills. Activities of the sternothyroid and sternohyoid muscles, two muscles involved in vocal production in other mammals, are not critical for the production of rat USV. To test how stereotypic laryngeal and respiratory activity are across call types and individuals, sets of ten EMG and subglottal pressure parameters were measured in six different call types from six rats. Using discriminant function analysis, on average 80% of parameter sets were correctly assigned to their respective call type. This was significantly higher than the chance level. Since fundamental frequency features of USV are tightly associated with stereotypic activity of intrinsic laryngeal muscles and muscles contributing to build-up of subglottal pressure, USV provide insight into the neurophysiological control of peripheral vocal motor patterns. J. Exp. Zool. 319A:213224, 2013. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据