These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
254 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26692450)
41. Sound transmission and the recognition of temporally degraded sexual advertisement signals in Cope's gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis). Kuczynski MC; Vélez A; Schwartz JJ; Bee MA J Exp Biol; 2010 Aug; 213(Pt 16):2840-50. PubMed ID: 20675554 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Temporal order and the evolution of complex acoustic signals. Gerhardt HC; Humfeld SC; Marshall VT Proc Biol Sci; 2007 Jul; 274(1619):1789-94. PubMed ID: 17507330 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Hearing illusory sounds in noise: the timing of sensory-perceptual transformations in auditory cortex. Riecke L; Esposito F; Bonte M; Formisano E Neuron; 2009 Nov; 64(4):550-61. PubMed ID: 19945396 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Frogs Exploit Statistical Regularities in Noisy Acoustic Scenes to Solve Cocktail-Party-like Problems. Lee N; Ward JL; Vélez A; Micheyl C; Bee MA Curr Biol; 2017 Mar; 27(5):743-750. PubMed ID: 28238657 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Progesterone and prostaglandin F2α induce species-typical female preferences for male sexual displays in Cope's gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis). Ward JL; Love EK; Baugh AT; Gordon NM; Tanner JC; Bee MA Physiol Behav; 2015 Dec; 152(Pt A):280-7. PubMed ID: 26454212 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Illusory auditory continuity despite neural evidence to the contrary. Riecke L; Micheyl C; Oxenham AJ Adv Exp Med Biol; 2013; 787():483-9. PubMed ID: 23716255 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Functional mapping of the auditory midbrain during mate call reception. Hoke KL; Burmeister SS; Fernald RD; Rand AS; Ryan MJ; Wilczynski W J Neurosci; 2004 Dec; 24(50):11264-72. PubMed ID: 15601932 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Spatial hearing in Cope's gray treefrog: II. Frequency-dependent directionality in the amplitude and phase of tympanum vibrations. Caldwell MS; Lee N; Schrode KM; Johns AR; Christensen-Dalsgaard J; Bee MA J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol; 2014 Apr; 200(4):285-304. PubMed ID: 24504183 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Sound level discrimination by gray treefrogs in the presence and absence of chorus-shaped noise. Bee MA; Vélez A; Forester JD J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 May; 131(5):4188-95. PubMed ID: 22559390 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Species specificity and temperature dependency of temporal processing by the auditory midbrain of two species of treefrogs. Rose GJ; Brenowitz EA; Capranica RR J Comp Physiol A; 1985 Dec; 157(6):763-9. PubMed ID: 3837112 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Tuning for spectro-temporal modulations as a mechanism for auditory discrimination of natural sounds. Woolley SM; Fremouw TE; Hsu A; Theunissen FE Nat Neurosci; 2005 Oct; 8(10):1371-9. PubMed ID: 16136039 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Categorical perception of a natural, multivariate signal: mating call recognition in túngara frogs. Baugh AT; Akre KL; Ryan MJ Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2008 Jul; 105(26):8985-8. PubMed ID: 18577592 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Amodal completion of acoustic signals by a nonhuman primate. Miller CT; Dibble E; Hauser MD Nat Neurosci; 2001 Aug; 4(8):783-4. PubMed ID: 11477422 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Influence of sound specificity and familiarity on Japanese macaques' (Macaca fuscata) auditory laterality. Lemasson A; Koda H; Kato A; Oyakawa C; Blois-Heulin C; Masataka N Behav Brain Res; 2010 Mar; 208(1):286-9. PubMed ID: 20006649 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Power output of sound-producing muscles in the tree frogs Hyla versicolor and Hyla chrysoscelis. Girgenrath M; Marsh RL J Exp Biol; 1999 Nov; 202(Pt 22):3225-37. PubMed ID: 10539971 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Evidence of auditory insensitivity to vocalization frequencies in two frogs. Goutte S; Mason MJ; Christensen-Dalsgaard J; Montealegre-Z F; Chivers BD; Sarria-S FA; Antoniazzi MM; Jared C; Almeida Sato L; Felipe Toledo L Sci Rep; 2017 Sep; 7(1):12121. PubMed ID: 28935936 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Signal perception in frogs and bats and the evolution of mating signals. Akre KL; Farris HE; Lea AM; Page RA; Ryan MJ Science; 2011 Aug; 333(6043):751-2. PubMed ID: 21817052 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. The auditory continuity illusion: a parametric investigation and filter model. Riecke L; Van Orstal AJ; Formisano E Percept Psychophys; 2008 Jan; 70(1):1-12. PubMed ID: 18306956 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. The biological significance of acoustic stimuli determines ear preference in the music frog. Xue F; Fang G; Yang P; Zhao E; Brauth SE; Tang Y J Exp Biol; 2015 Mar; 218(Pt 5):740-7. PubMed ID: 25740903 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Acoustic radiation patterns of mating calls of the tungara frog (Physalaemus pustuosus): implications for multiple receivers. Bernal XE; Page RA; Ryan MJ; Argo TF; Wilson PS J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Nov; 126(5):2757-67. PubMed ID: 19894851 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]