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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Are the initial frequency-modulated components of the mustached bat's biosonar pulses important for ranging?
    Author: Fitzpatrick DC, Suga N, Misawa H.
    Journal: J Neurophysiol; 1991 Dec; 66(6):1951-64. PubMed ID: 1812228.
    Abstract:
    1. FM-FM neurons in the auditory cortex of the mustached bat, Pteronotus parnellii, are specialized to process target range. They respond when the terminal frequency-modulated component (TFM) of a biosonar pulse is paired with the TFM of the echo at a particular echo delay. Recently, it has been suggested that the initial FM components (IFMs) of biosonar signals may also be important for target ranging. To examine the possible role of IFMs in target ranging, we characterized the properties of IFMs and TFMs in biosonar pulses emitted by bats swung on a pendulum. We then studied responses of FM-FM neurons to synthesized biosonar signals containing IFMs and TFMs. 2. The mustached bat's biosonar signal consists of four harmonics, of which the second (H2) is the most intense. Each harmonic has an IFM in addition to a constant-frequency component (CF) and a TFM. Therefore each pulse potentially consists of 12 components, IFM1-4, CF1-4, and TFM1-4. The IFM sweeps up while the TFM sweeps down. 3. The IFM2 and TFM2 depths (i.e., bandwidths) were measured in 217 pulses from four animals. The mean IFM2 depth was much smaller than the mean TFM2 depth, 2.87 +/- 1.52 (SD) kHz compared with 16.27 +/- 1.08 kHz, respectively. The amplitude of the IFM2 continuously increased throughout its duration and was always less than the CF2 amplitude, whereas the TFM2 was relatively constant in amplitude over approximately three-quarters of its duration and was often the most intense part of the pulse. The maximum amplitude of the IFM2 was, on average, 11 dB smaller than that of the TFM2. Because range resolution increases with depth and the maximum detectable range increases with signal amplitude, the IFMs are poorly suited for ranging compared with the TFMs. 4. FM-FM neurons (n = 77) did not respond or responded very poorly to IFMs with depths and intensities similar to those emitted on the pendulum. The mean IFM2 depth at which a just-noticeable response appeared was 4.48 +/- 1.98 kHz. Only 14% of the pulses emitted on the pendulum had IFM2 depths that exceeded the mean IFM2 depth threshold of FM-FM neurons. 5. Most FM-FM neurons responded to IFMs that had depths comparable with those of TFMs. However, when all parameters were adjusted to optimize the response to TFMs and then readjusted to maximize the response to IFMs, 52% of 27 neurons tested responded significantly better to the optimal TFMs than to the optimal IFMs (P less than 0.05, t test).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]