spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Elepfandt, A.
Right arrow Articles by Traub, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Elepfandt, A.
Right arrow Articles by Traub, B.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Journal of Experimental Biology, Vol 203, Issue 23 3621-3629, Copyright © 2000 by Company of Biologists

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Hearing threshold and frequency discrimination in the purely aquatic frog Xenopus laevis (Pipidae): measurement by means of conditioning

A Elepfandt, I Eistetter, A Fleig, E Gunther, M Hainich, S Hepperle and B Traub
Universitat Konstanz, Fakultat fur Biologie, D-78464 Konstanz, Germany and. Andreas.Elepfandt@rz.HU-Berlin.de

Hearing threshold and frequency discrimination for underwater sound were measured in the clawed frog Xenopus laevis by means of conditioning. A go/no go discrimination procedure was used in which the test tone was presented concurrently with a wave on the surface of the water. The tone signalled whether or not the frog should respond to the wave. The hearing range of X. laevis was 200-4000 Hz. Similar thresholds of 92-96 dB re 1 microPa were found at 600 Hz, 1400-1800 Hz and 3200-3600 Hz. A high threshold at 1000-1300 Hz suggested that this was the frequency range between the sensitivities of the amphibian and basilar papillae. Relative frequency discrimination was approximately 5 % at 400-800 Hz, 45 % at 1000 Hz and 2.4-6 % at 1600-2500 Hz. This last range encompasses the dominant frequencies of the advertisement call of this species. High discrimination acuity at these frequencies may be used in distinguishing between calling males. The threshold for a one-third-octave bandpass noise centred at 600 Hz was 27.6 dB lower than that for a pure tone of 600 Hz, suggesting that sound intensity was integrated within this bandwidth, possibly by a critical-band mechanism.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?




© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2000