刊期:双月刊
主管单位:四川省科学技术协会
主办单位:四川省动物学会/成都大熊猫繁育研究基金会/四川省野生动植物保护协会/四川大学
地址:四川省成都市武侯区望江路29号四川大学生命科学学院内
邮编:610064
电话:028-85410485; 15881112385
传真:028-85410485
E-Mail:scdwzz@vip.163.com & scdwzz001@163.com
刊号:ISSN 1000-7083
        CN 51-1193/Q
国内发行代号:
国际发行代号:
发行范围:国内外公开发布
定价:50元/册
定价:300元/年

您所在位置:首页->过刊浏览->2017年第36卷第3期

仙琴蛙广告鸣叫中不同音节生物学意义的差异研究
Biological Significances of Advertisement Call Notes in Babina daunchina
乐西子1,2, 江帆1, 薛飞1, 方光战1*, 唐业忠1
点击:349次 下载:0次
DOI:10.11984/j.issn.1000-7083.20160313
作者单位:1. 中国科学院成都生物研究所, 成都 610041;
2. 中国科学院大学, 北京 100049
中文关键字:仙琴蛙;广告鸣叫;音节;失匹配负波;听觉偏侧性;伪重复
英文关键字:Babina daunchina; advertisement call; note; mismatch negativity; auditory lateralization; pseudoreplication
中文摘要:声音通讯对发声动物的生存和繁殖起着重要作用。但动物鸣声在时域上不同组成部分的生物学意义差异尚无定论。无尾两栖类的鸣声一般由音节和间隔组成,如雄性仙琴蛙Babina daunchina的广告鸣叫由一至十余个音节及持续时间约为150 ms的间隔组成,这为研究不同音节生物学意义的差异提供了便利。本研究采用优化的失匹配负波(MMN)范式,在播放标准刺激(白噪声)和偏差刺激(同一个广告鸣叫的5个音节)时,采集脑电信号,经过叠加平均后得到MMN。结果显示,第一个音节对应的MMN幅度最高,而且具有大脑左侧优势。由于MMN幅度表征刺激与记忆痕迹之间的差异,同时反映投入的大脑资源,据此推测第一个音节在蛙类声音通讯中起至关重要的作用。
英文摘要:Complex acoustic communication sounds play a crucial role in coordinating social and reproductive behaviors in many terrestrial species. However, the biological significance of each component of such complex sounds is still unclear. Most of the calls of male anuran species are composed of a series of notes and intervals. For example, advertisement calls of the male Emei music frog (Babina daunchina) frequently contain one to ten or more notes that are separated by intervals of approximately 150 ms. Therefore, Emei music frog is an interesting model to explore the biological significance of each note. By using the optimized paradigm of mismatch negativity (MMN), one standard stimulus (white noise) and 5 deviant stimuli(5 notes from one advertisement call) were played back to frogs and multichannel electroencephalogram recordings were then obtained. The results showed that the MMN amplitudes were greater in the left hemisphere, indicating a left brain advantage for perceiving these deviations. While the MMN amplitude of the first note was significantly larger than that of others. Since the MMN amplitude is thought to reflect not only the difference between the standard and deviant stimuli, but also the brain resources devoted to cognitive processing, it is reasonable to speculate that the first note is the most important unit of vocal communication in frogs.
2017,36(3): 241-248 收稿日期:2016-11-14
DOI:10.11984/j.issn.1000-7083.20160313
分类号:Q955;Q959.5
基金项目:国家自然科学基金项目(31672305;31372217)
作者简介:乐西子,女,硕士,研究方向:动物声音通讯及其神经机理,E-mail:lexz@cib.ac.cn
*通讯作者:方光战,E-mail:fanggz@cib.ac.cn
参考文献:
舒华, 张亚旭. 2008. 心理学研究方法:实验设计与数据分析[M]. 北京:人民教育出版社.
薛飞, 方光战, 唐业忠. 2016. 大脑听觉偏侧性的特征与演化[J]. 四川动物, 35(4):626-631.
Bee MA, Micheyl C. 2008. The cocktail party problem:what is it? How can it be solved? And why should animal behaviorists study it?[J]. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 122(3):235-251.
Biermann S, Heil P. 2000. Parallels between timing of onset responses of single neurons in cat and of evoked magnetic fields in human auditory cortex[J]. Journal of Neurophysiology, 84(5):2426-2439.
Briefer E, Osiejuk TS, Rybak F, et al. 2010. Are bird song complexity and song sharing shaped by habitat structure? An information theory and statistical approach[J]. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 262(1):151-164.
Brillet C, Paillette M. 1991. Acoustic signals of the nocturnal lizard Gekko gecko:analysis of the ‘long complex sequence’[J]. Bioacoustics, 3(1):33-44.
Bruns A, Eckhorn R, Jokeit H, et al. 2000. Amplitude envelope correlation detects coupling among incoherent brain signals[J]. NeuroReport, 11(7):1509-1514.
Chen Q, Cui J, Fang G, et al. 2011. Acoustic analysis of the advertisement calls of the music frog, Babina daunchina[J]. Journal of Herpetology, 45(4):406-416.
Cherry C. 1958. On human communication:a review, a survey, and a criticism[M]. New York:Springer:147-150.
Cohen J. 1992. A power primer[J]. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1):155-157.
Cui J, Tang Y, Narins PM. 2012. Real estate ads in Emei music frog vocalizations:female preference for calls emanating from burrows[J]. Biology Letters, 8(3):337-340.
Deveney CM, Pizzagalli DA. 2008. The cognitive consequences of emotion regulation:an ERP investigation[J]. Psychophysiology, 45(3):435-444.
Doupe AJ, Kuhl PK. 1999. Birdsong and human speech:common themes and mechanisms[J]. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 22(1):567-631.
Fang G, Jiang F, Yang P, et al. 2014a. Male vocal competition is dynamic and strongly affected by social contexts in music frogs[J]. Animal Cognition, 17(2):483-494.
Fang G, Xue F, Yang P, et al. 2014b. Right ear advantage for vocal communication in frogs results from both structural asymmetry and attention modulation[J]. Behavioural Brain Research, 266(2014):77-84.
Fang G, Yang P, Xue F, et al. 2015. Sound classification and call discrimination are decoded in order as revealed by event-related potential components in frogs[J]. Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 86:232-245.
Handy TC. 2005. Event-related potentials:a methods handbook[M]. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Honbolygó F, Csépe V, Ragó A. 2004. Suprasegmental speech cues are automatically processed by the human brain:a mismatch negativity study[J]. Neuroscience Letters, 363(1):84-88.
Hurlbert SH. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments[J]. Ecological Monographs, 54(2):187-211.
Jacobsen T, Schr ger E. 2001. Is there pre-attentive memory-based comparison of pitch?[J]. Psychophysiology, 38(4):723-727.
Jančcovič P, Köküer M. 2011. Automatic detection and recognition of tonal bird sounds in noisy environments[J]. EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing, 2011(1):1-10.
Jaramillo M, Paavilainen P, Näätänen R. 2000. Mismatch negativity and behavioural discrimination in humans as a function of the magnitude of change in sound duration[J]. Neuroscience Letters, 290(2):101-104.
Jiang F, Fang G, Xue F, et al. 2015. Male music frogs compete vocally on the basis of temporal sequence rather than spatial cues of rival calls[J]. Asian Herpetological Research, 6(4):305-316.
Korpilahti P, Krause CM, Holopainen I, et al. 2001. Early and late mismatch negativity elicited by words and speech-like stimuli in children[J]. Brain and Language, 76(3):332-339.
Lalonde-Robert V, Desgent S, Duss S, et al. 2012. Electroencephalographic and physiologic changes after tricaine methanesulfonate immersion of African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis)[J]. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, 51(5):622-627.
Lazic SE. 2010. The problem of pseudoreplication in neuroscientific studies:is it affecting your analysis?[J]. BMC Neuroscience, 11(1):5-21.
Liu Y, Fan Y, Xue F, et al. 2016. Changes in electroencephalogram approximate entropy reflect auditory processing and functional complexity in frogs[J]. Asian Herpetological Research, 7(3):180-190.
Luck SJ. 2005. An introduction to the event-related potential technique[M]. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Magnhagen C. 1991. Predation risk as a cost of reproduction[J]. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 6(6):183-186.
McDonald JJ, Teder-Sälejärvi WA, Di Russo F, et al. 2005. Neural basis of auditory-induced shifts in visual time-order perception[J]. Nature Neuroscience, 8(9):1197-1202.
Näätänen R, Gaillard AWK, Mäntysalo S. 1978. Early selective-attention effect on evoked potential reinterpreted[J]. Acta Psychologica, 42(4):313-329.
Näätänen R, Kujala T, Winkler I. 2011. Auditory processing that leads to conscious perception:a unique window to central auditory processing opened by the mismatch negativity and related responses[J]. Psychophysiology, 48(1):4-22.
Näätänen R, Michie PT. 1979. Early selective-attention effects on the evoked potential:a critical review and reinterpretation[J]. Biological Psychology, 8(2):81-136.
Näätänen R, Paavilainen P, Rinne T, et al. 2007. The mismatch negativity (MMN) in basic research of central auditory processing:a review[J]. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118(12):2544-2590.
Näätänen R, Pakarinen S, Rinne T, et al. 2004. The mismatch negativity (MMN):towards the optimal paradigm[J]. Clinical Neurophysiology, 115(1):140-144.
Näätänen R, Schr ger E, Karakas S, et al. 1993. Development of a memory trace for a complex sound in the human brain[J]. NeuroReport, 4(5):503-506.
Näätänen R. 2001. The perception of speech sounds by the human brain as reflected by the mismatch negativity (MMN) and its magnetic equivalent (MMNm)[J]. Psychophysiology, 38(1):1-21.
Ostroff JM, McDonald KL, Schneider BA, et al. 2003. Aging and the processing of sound duration in human auditory cortex[J]. Hearing Research, 181(1):1-7.
Peter V, McArthur G, Thompson WF. 2010. Effect of deviance direction and calculation method on duration and frequency mismatch negativity (MMN)[J]. Neuroscience Letters, 482(1):71-75.
Ryan MJ. 1985. The túngara frog:a study in sexual selection and communication[M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Smith D. 1974. Sympathetic cardiac stimulation in Bufo marinus under MS-222 anesthesia[J]. American Journal of Physiology, 226(2):367-370.
Späth M, Schweickert W. 1977. The effect of metacaine (MS-222) on the activity of the efferent and afferent nerves in the teleost lateral-line system[J]. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology, 297(1):9-16.
Sussman ES. 2007. A new view on the MMN and attention debate:the role of context in processing auditory events[J]. Journal of Psychophysiology, 21(3-4):164-175.
Suzuki TN, Wheatcroft D, Griesser M. 2016. Experimental evidence for compositional syntax in bird calls[J]. Nature Communications, 7:10986.
Tang Y, Zhuang L, Wang Z, et al. 2001. Advertisement calls and their relation to reproductive cycles in Gekko gecko (Reptilia, Lacertilia)[J]. Copeia, 2001(1):248-253.
Tervaniemi M, Ilvonen T, Sinkkonen J, et al. 2000. Harmonic partials facilitate pitch discrimination in humans:electrophysiological and behavioral evidence[J]. Neuroscience Letters, 279(1):29-32.
Todd J, Michie PT. 2000. Do perceived loudness cues contribute to duration mismatch negativity (MMN)?[J]. NeuroReport, 11(17):3771-3774.
Walkowiak W. 2007. Call production and neural basis of vocalization[M]. New York:Springer:87-112.
Wells KD, Schwartz JJ. 2007. The behavioral ecology of anuran communication[M]. New York:Springer:44-86.
Williams H, Staples K. 1992. Syllable chunking in zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata) song[J]. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 106(3):278-286.
Woldorff MG, Hackley SA, Hillyard SA. 1991. The effects of channel-selective attention on the mismatch negativity wave elicited by deviant tones[J]. Psychophysiology, 28(1):30-42.
Xue F, Fang G, Yang P, et al. 2015. The biological significance of acoustic stimuli determines ear preference in the music frog[J]. Journal of Experimental Biology, 218(5):740-747.
Xue F, Fang G, Yue X, et al. 2016. Resting-state brain networks revealed by granger causal connectivity in frogs[J]. Neuroscience, 334:332-340.
Yago E, Escera C, Alho K, et al. 2003. Spatiotemporal dynamics of the auditory novelty-P3 event-related brain potential[J]. Cognitive Brain Research, 16(3):383-390.
读者评论

      读者ID: 密码:   
我要评论:
国内统一连续出版物号:51-1193/Q |国际标准出版物号:1000-7083
主管单位:四川省科学技术协会  主办单位:四川省动物学会/成都大熊猫繁育研究基金会/四川省野生动植物保护协会/四川大学
开户银行:中国工商银行四川分行营业部东大支行(工行成都东大支行营业室)  帐户名:四川省动物学会  帐号:4402 2980 0900 0012 596
版权所有©2017四川动物》编辑部 蜀ICP备08107403号-3
您是本站第5803687名访问者

川公网安备 51010702000173号