Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Special issues
    • Subject collections
    • Interviews
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About JEB
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Travelling Fellowships
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
    • Outstanding paper prize
    • Biology Open transfer
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contacts
    • Contact JEB
    • Subscriptions
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Institutional usage stats (logged-in users only)
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Experimental Biology
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

supporting biologistsinspiring biology

Journal of Experimental Biology

  • Log in
Advanced search

RSS  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Special issues
    • Subject collections
    • Interviews
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About JEB
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Travelling Fellowships
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
    • Outstanding paper prize
    • Biology Open transfer
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contacts
    • Contact JEB
    • Subscriptions
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Institutional usage stats (logged-in users only)
Research Article
The influence of bat echolocation call duration and timing on auditory encoding of predator distance in noctuoid moths
Shira D. Gordon, Hannah M. ter Hofstede
Journal of Experimental Biology 2018 221: jeb171561 doi: 10.1242/jeb.171561 Published 22 March 2018
Shira D. Gordon
Dartmouth College, Department of Biological Sciences, 78 College Street, Hanover, NH 03755, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hannah M. ter Hofstede
Dartmouth College, Department of Biological Sciences, 78 College Street, Hanover, NH 03755, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Hannah M. ter Hofstede
  • For correspondence: Hannah.ter.hofstede@dartmouth.edu
  • Article
  • Figures & tables
  • Supp info
  • Info & metrics
  • PDF + SI
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Tables

Figures

  • Fig. 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 1.

    Neural thresholds for sounds in moths. (A) Example recording of the auditory nerve in the noctuid moth Heliothis virescens (top traces=nerve, bottom traces=sound stimuli). A1 and A2 spikes are marked in insets with blue and red dots, respectively. (B) Audiogram of A1 and A2 cell thresholds for the noctuid moth H. virescens (left panel, N=18 moths) and individuals of multiple noctuid and erebid moth species (right panel, N=19 moths). See Materials and methods for species and sample sizes. Points are means. Error bars are s.d.

  • Fig. 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 2.

    Intensity–response curves for A cell activity in moths. (A) Intensity–response curves for 50 kHz sound pulses of four durations for the noctuid moth Heliothis virescens (N=8 moths). Top panel: the total number of A cell spikes per sound pulse (i.e. A1+A2 cell spikes). (C) The number of A cell spikes plotted independently by pulse duration and cell type (blue points, A1 spikes; red points, A2 spikes; black points, A1+A2 spikes). (B,D) The same data as in A and C but for moths of various noctuid and erebid species (N=20 moths). See Materials and methods for species and sample sizes. Points are means. Error bars are s.d.

  • Fig. 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 3.

    A1 cell saturation ranges. (A) Intensity–response curve for the moth Raphia frater illustrating the saturation range (range of intensities for which the number of A1 spikes per pulse does not change with increasing sound amplitude below the A2 threshold). Stimuli were 2 ms pulses of 50 kHz. (B) The mean saturation range (dB) (top panels) and the mean number of A1 spikes per pulse within the saturation range (bottom panels) for sound pulses of four different durations (Heliothis virescens N=8 moths; various moth species N=20 moths). For example, in A, the number of A1 spikes per pulse within the saturation range is 4. Different letters within the bars indicate statistically significant differences (repeated-measures ANOVA, P<0.01). See Materials and methods for moth species and sample sizes. Error bars are s.d.

  • Fig. 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 4.

    A1 cell interspike intervals across the saturation range. The mean for the first A1 interspike interval (time from the first A1 spike to the second A1 spike) (top panels) and the mean of the first three A1 interspike intervals (bottom panels) for pulse numbers 1–4 within the saturation range (Heliothis virescens N=8 moths; various moth species N=20 moths). Stimuli were 2 ms pulses of 50 kHz. Different letters within the bars indicate statistically significant differences (repeated-measures ANOVA, P<0.01). See Materials and methods for species and sample sizes. Error bars are s.d.

  • Fig. 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 5.

    A1 and A2 cell thresholds for four sound pulse durations. Heliothis virescens N=8 moths; various moth species N=20 moths. Different letters above the bars indicate statistically significant differences (repeated-measures ANOVA, P<0.01). See Materials and methods for species and sample sizes. Values are means. Error bars are s.d.

  • Fig. 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 6.

    Intensity–response curves for the bat-like pulse sequences. (A) The mean number of A1 and A2 spikes per pulse for sequences of pulses in the timing of bat search- or approach-phase echolocation calls (N=10 moths). See Materials and methods for moth species and species sample sizes. (B) Same as A but for the moth Catocala habilis showing the saturation ranges. Error bars are s.d.

  • Fig. 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 7.

    Difference in the number of A1 spikes for the first and last pulse in the bat-like pulse sequences. The difference in A1 spikes increased with amplitude for the approach sequence but not for the search sequence (N=10 moths). See Materials and methods for moth species and species sample sizes.

Previous ArticleNext Article
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

This Issue

Keywords

  • Hearing
  • Sound pressure level
  • SPL
  • Neural adaptation
  • Predator avoidance

 Download PDF

Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Experimental Biology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The influence of bat echolocation call duration and timing on auditory encoding of predator distance in noctuoid moths
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Experimental Biology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Experimental Biology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Research Article
The influence of bat echolocation call duration and timing on auditory encoding of predator distance in noctuoid moths
Shira D. Gordon, Hannah M. ter Hofstede
Journal of Experimental Biology 2018 221: jeb171561 doi: 10.1242/jeb.171561 Published 22 March 2018
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Research Article
The influence of bat echolocation call duration and timing on auditory encoding of predator distance in noctuoid moths
Shira D. Gordon, Hannah M. ter Hofstede
Journal of Experimental Biology 2018 221: jeb171561 doi: 10.1242/jeb.171561 Published 22 March 2018

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Alerts

Please log in to add an alert for this article.

Sign in to email alerts with your email address

Article navigation

  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgements
    • FOOTNOTES
    • References
  • Figures & tables
  • Supp info
  • Info & metrics
  • PDF + SI
  • PDF

Related articles

Cited by...

More in this TOC section

  • Wing damage affects flight kinematics but not flower tracking performance in hummingbird hawkmoths
  • Early-life effects of juvenile Western diet and exercise on adult gut microbiome composition in mice
  • Angling gear avoidance learning in juvenile red sea bream: evidence from individual-based experiments
Show more RESEARCH ARTICLE

Similar articles

Subject collections

  • Neuroethology

Other journals from The Company of Biologists

Development

Journal of Cell Science

Disease Models & Mechanisms

Biology Open

Advertisement

Welcome to JEB’s new Editor Monica Daley

We are pleased to welcome Monica Daley to JEB’s Editorial team. Monica has had a long association with JEB before taking up her new role, overseeing peer review of neuromuscular physiology, terrestrial biomechanics and integrative physiology of locomotion.


In the field with Robyn Hetem

Continuing our fieldwork series, Robyn Hetem reflects on working with species ranging from aardvark to zebra, and the impact COVID-19 has had on fieldwork.


Read & Publish participation continues to grow

“It is particularly encouraging for early career researchers, as it allows them to display their research globally without the need to find costs to cover the open access option.”

Professor Fernando Montealegre-Z (University of Lincoln) shares his experience of publishing Open Access as part of our growing Read & Publish initiative. We now have over 150 institutions in 15 countries and four library consortia taking part – find out more and view our full list of participating institutions.


Nocturnal reef residents have deep-sea-like eyes

Fanny de Busserolles and colleagues from The University of Queensland have discovered that the eyes of nocturnal reef fish have multibank retinas, layers of photoreceptors, similar to the eyes of deep-sea fish that live in dim light conditions.


Mechanisms underlying gut microbiota–host interactions in insects

In their Review, Konstantin Schmidt and Philipp Engel summarise recent findings about the mechanisms involved in gut colonisation and the provisioning of beneficial effects in gut microbiota–insect symbiosis.

Articles

  • Accepted manuscripts
  • Issue in progress
  • Latest complete issue
  • Issue archive
  • Archive by article type
  • Special issues
  • Subject collections
  • Interviews
  • Sign up for alerts

About us

  • About JEB
  • Editors and Board
  • Editor biographies
  • Travelling Fellowships
  • Grants and funding
  • Journal Meetings
  • Workshops
  • The Company of Biologists
  • Journal news

For Authors

  • Submit a manuscript
  • Aims and scope
  • Presubmission enquiries
  • Article types
  • Manuscript preparation
  • Cover suggestions
  • Editorial process
  • Promoting your paper
  • Open Access
  • Outstanding paper prize
  • Biology Open transfer

Journal Info

  • Journal policies
  • Rights and permissions
  • Media policies
  • Reviewer guide
  • Sign up for alerts

Contact

  • Contact JEB
  • Subscriptions
  • Advertising
  • Feedback

 Twitter   YouTube   LinkedIn

© 2021   The Company of Biologists Ltd   Registered Charity 277992