4.5 Article

Classification of simulated complex echoes based on highlight time separation in the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
卷 152, 期 3, 页码 1795-1803

出版社

ACOUSTICAL SOC AMER AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1121/10.0014114

关键词

-

资金

  1. Office of Naval Research
  2. [32]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that dolphins' perception of echoes depends on the critical interval of their auditory temporal window, and there are differences in the perception of microspectra and macrospectra.
Previous studies suggested that dolphins perceive echo spectral features on coarse (macrospectrum) and fine (microspectrum) scales. This study was based on a finding that these auditory percepts are, to some degree, dependent on the dolphin's & SIM;250-mu s auditory temporal window (i.e., critical interval ). Here, two dolphins were trained to respond on passively detecting a simulated target echo complex [a pair of echo highlights with a characteristic 120-mu s inter-highlight interval (IHI)]. This target had unique micro- and macrospectral features and was presented among distractor echoes with IHIs from 50 to 500 mu s (i.e., microspectra) and various highlight durations (i.e., macrospectra). Following acquisition of this discrimination task, probe echo complexes with the macrospectrum of the target but IHIs matching the distractors were infrequently presented. Both dolphins initially responded more often to probes with IHIs of 80-200 mu s. Response strategies diverged with increasing probe presentations; one dolphin responded to a progressively narrower range of probe IHIs while the second increased response rates for probes with IHIs > 250 mu s. These results support previous conclusions that perception of macrospectra for complex echoes is nonconstant as the IHI decreases below & SIM;100 mu s, but results approaching and exceeding 250 mu s-the temporal window upper boundary-were more ambiguous. (C) 2022 Acoustical Society of America.

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

4.5
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