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.
215 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28238657)
41. Sensory Biology: How Female Treefrogs Pick Mates at a Noisy Party. Taylor RC Curr Biol; 2017 Mar; 27(5):R188-R190. PubMed ID: 28267975 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Hearing Mechanisms and Noise Metrics Related to Auditory Masking in Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Branstetter BK; Bakhtiari KL; Trickey JS; Finneran JJ Adv Exp Med Biol; 2016; 875():109-16. PubMed ID: 26610950 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Evolutionary adaptations for the temporal processing of natural sounds by the anuran peripheral auditory system. Schrode KM; Bee MA J Exp Biol; 2015 Mar; 218(Pt 6):837-48. PubMed ID: 25617467 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Relative comparisons of call parameters enable auditory grouping in frogs. Farris HE; Ryan MJ Nat Commun; 2011 Aug; 2():410. PubMed ID: 21811239 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. The paradox of hearing at the lek: auditory sensitivity increases after breeding in female gray treefrogs (Hyla chrysoscelis). Baugh AT; Bee MA; Gall MD J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol; 2019 Aug; 205(4):629-639. PubMed ID: 31227859 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Torrent frogs emit acoustic signals of a narrower spectral range in habitats with longer-lasting biotic background noise. Forti LR; de Melo Sampaio MR; Pires CR; Szabo JK; Toledo LF Behav Processes; 2022 Aug; 200():104700. PubMed ID: 35798216 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. The tradeoff between signal detection and recognition rules auditory sensitivity under variable background noise conditions. Lugli M J Theor Biol; 2015 Dec; 386():1-6. PubMed ID: 26375371 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. 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]
49. The Lombard effect in male ultrasonic frogs: Regulating antiphonal signal frequency and amplitude in noise. Shen JX; Xu ZM Sci Rep; 2016 Jun; 6():27103. PubMed ID: 27345957 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Speech intelligibility among modulated and spatially distributed noise sources. Culling JF; Mansell ER J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Apr; 133(4):2254-61. PubMed ID: 23556593 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Preferences based on spectral differences in acoustic signals in four species of treefrogs (Anura: Hylidae). Gerhardt HC; Martínez-Rivera CC; Schwartz JJ; Marshall VT; Murphy CG J Exp Biol; 2007 Sep; 210(Pt 17):2990-8. PubMed ID: 17704074 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Sound Classification and Call Discrimination Are Decoded in Order as Revealed by Event-Related Potential Components in Frogs. Fang G; Yang P; Xue F; Cui J; Brauth SE; Tang Y Brain Behav Evol; 2015; 86(3-4):232-45. PubMed ID: 26613526 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Differential effects of sound level and temporal structure of calls on phonotaxis by female gray treefrogs, Hyla versicolor. Christie KW; Schul J; Feng AS J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol; 2019 Apr; 205(2):223-238. PubMed ID: 30927060 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. ARTSTREAM: a neural network model of auditory scene analysis and source segregation. Grossberg S; Govindarajan KK; Wyse LL; Cohen MA Neural Netw; 2004 May; 17(4):511-36. PubMed ID: 15109681 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Stream noise, hybridization, and uncoupled evolution of call traits in two lineages of poison frogs: Oophaga histrionica and Oophaga lehmanni. Vargas-Salinas F; Amézquita A PLoS One; 2013; 8(10):e77545. PubMed ID: 24194888 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Acoustic signal perception in a noisy habitat: lessons from synchronising insects. Hartbauer M; Siegert ME; Fertschai I; Römer H J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol; 2012 Jun; 198(6):397-409. PubMed ID: 22427234 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Little effect of natural noise on high-frequency hearing in frogs, Odorrana tormota. Liu J; Yang H; Hu GL; Li S; Xu ZM; Qi Z; Shen JX J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol; 2015 Oct; 201(10):1029-34. PubMed ID: 26260392 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Cortical interference effects in the cocktail party problem. Narayan R; Best V; Ozmeral E; McClaine E; Dent M; Shinn-Cunningham B; Sen K Nat Neurosci; 2007 Dec; 10(12):1601-7. PubMed ID: 17994016 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Masking interference and the evolution of the acoustic communication system in the Amazonian dendrobatid frog Allobates femoralis. Amézquita A; Hödl W; Lima AP; Castellanos L; Erdtmann L; de Araújo MC Evolution; 2006 Sep; 60(9):1874-87. PubMed ID: 17089972 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Noise affects mate choice based on visual information via cross-sensory interference. Zhu B; Zhang H; Chen Q; He Q; Zhao X; Sun X; Wang T; Wang J; Cui J Environ Pollut; 2022 Sep; 308():119680. PubMed ID: 35787421 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]