QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

First published online December 14, 2007
Journal of Experimental Biology 211, 106-113 (2008)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2008
doi: 10.1242/jeb.009688

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bates, M. E. Articles by Simmons, J. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bates, M. E. Articles by Simmons, J. A. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Jamming avoidance response of big brown bats in target detection

Mary E. Bates^1,*, Sarah A. Stamper² and James A. Simmons²

¹ Department of Psychology, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, USA
² Department of Neuroscience, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, USA

^* Author for correspondence (e-mail: Mary_Bates{at}brown.edu)

Accepted 30 October 2007

When searching for prey, big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) enhance the range of their sonar by concentrating more energy in the nearly constant-frequency (CF) tail portion of their frequency-modulated (FM) sweeps. We hypothesize that this portion of their signals may be vulnerable to interference from conspecifics using the same frequencies in their own emissions. To determine how bats modify their signals when confronted with an interfering stimulus, we compared the echolocation calls of bats when a CF jamming tone was on and off. The bats performed a two-alternative forced-choice detection task in the laboratory that required the use of echolocation. All three bats shifted the tail-end CF component of their emitted frequency bidirectionally away from the CF jamming stimulus only when the jamming frequency was within 2–3 kHz of the preferred baseline frequency of the bat. The duration of their emissions did not differ between the jamming and no-jamming trials. The jamming avoidance response of bats may serve to avoid masking or interference in a narrow range of frequencies important for target detection.

Key words: echolocating bat, biosonar, jamming avoidance, echo processing

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. Chiu, W. Xian, and C. F. Moss Adaptive echolocation behavior in bats for the analysis of auditory scenes J. Exp. Biol., May 1, 2009; 212(9): 1392 - 1404. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Chiu, W. Xian, and C. F. Moss Flying in silence: Echolocating bats cease vocalizing to avoid sonar jamming PNAS, September 2, 2008; 105(35): 13116 - 13121. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]