Summary
-
1.
Six species of New Guinea megachiropteran bats have been studied electrophysiologically. Five are non-echolocating, one (Rousettus amplexicaudatus) has evolved an echolocation capability independent of echolocating microchiropteran bats. The purpose of the study was to compare auditory responses of non-echolocating bats with those of the echolocating bats studied to date, and to determine what adaptations have occured in Rousettus to permit echolocation.
-
2.
Evoked potentials were recorded from the posterior colliculus and more peripheral levels in anesthetized preparations.
-
3.
Emitted sounds of each species were recorded and are described (Fig. 1). All bats emit sounds at frequencies up to 60 kc/s or higher.
-
4.
All species were found to have similar audiograms, broadly tuned with greatest sensitivity around 45–50 kc/s. Rousettus was unexceptional (Fig. 2). No “off”-responses were seen.
-
5.
All species showed capabilities of frequency resolution comparable to that seen in microchiropteran bats emitting FM pulses (Fig. 3). Rousettus was not conspicuously different in this respect.
-
6.
The non-echolocating bats showed very slow recovery of responsiveness following an initial sound (Fig. 4) and poor ability to follow trains of stimuli at a high repetition rate compared with echolocating bats. Rousettus differed dramatically from its non-echolocating relatives in recovering quickly and in following with little reduction in response amplitude at a frequency of 200/sec. In all species, recovery rate was inversely related to stimulus intensity. In Rousettus even stimuli 20–30 db fainter than an initial sound elicited good responses at 2 msec or greater intervals (Fig. 5).
-
7.
Rousettus and its non-echolocating relatives showed generally smaller changes in sensitivity with changes in stimulus angle than are seen in microchiropteran bats. Greatest sensitivity was uniformly at 60–80° to one side, with relatively reduced sensitivity to sounds coming from directly in front, consistent with pinna position and with the lack of necessity for hearing sounds from directly ahead. Rousettus did not differ in any apparent way from the non-echolocating bats (Figs. 7, 8).
-
8.
It is concluded that non-echolocating bats, like other small mammals, lack several of the auditory adaptations considered to be adaptations for echolocation: sharp restriction of sensitivity to the region of emitted sounds, sensitivity at extremely high frequencies, fast temporal resolution, facilitation of responsiveness to the second of a pair of sounds, and sharply directional hearing in front of the bats.
-
9.
The only conspicuous difference between Rousettus and its non-echolocating relatives was in recovery rate. This suggests that fast temporal resolution is perhaps the most important of the necessary neural adaptations for echolocation.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Griffin, D. R., Novick, A., Kornfield, M.: The sensitivity of echolocation in the fruit bat, Rousettus. Biol. Bull. 115, 107–113 (1958).
Grinnell, A. D.: The neurophysiology of audition in bats: Intensity and frequency parameters. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 167, 38–66 (1963a).
—: The neurophysiology of audition in bats: Temporal parameters. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 167, 67–96 (1963b).
—: The neurophysiology of audition in bats: Directional localization and binaural interaction. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 167, 97–113 (1963c).
Grinnell, A. D.: The neurophysiology of audition in bats: Resistance to interference. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 167, 114–127 (1963d).
—: Mechanisms of overcoming interference in echolocating animals. In: Animal sonar systems, ed. R-G. Busnel, p. 451–481. Jouy-en-Josas. Imprimerie Louis-Jean (Gap) 1967.
—: Comparative auditory neurophysiology of neotropical bats employing different echolocation signals. Z. vergl. Physiol. 68, 117–153 (1970).
—, Grinnell, V. S.: Neural correlates of vertical localization by echo-locating bats. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 181, 830–851 (1965).
—, Hagiwara, S.: Adaptations of the auditory nervous system for echolocation; studies of New Guinea bats. Z. vergl. Physiol. 76, 41–81 (1971).
Henson, O. W. Jr.: The activity and function of the middle ear muscles in echolocating bats. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 180, 871–887 (1965).
—: The perception and analysis of biosonar signals by bats. In: Animal sonar systems. (R. G. Busnel, ed.) tome II, p. 949–1003. Jouy-en-Josas. Lab. Physiol. Acoust. 1967.
Kulzer E.: Flughunde erzeugen Orientierungslaute durch Zungenschlag. Naturwissenschaften 43, 117–118 (1956).
Nelson, J. E.: Behavior of Australian Pteropidae (Megachiroptera). Anim. Behav. 8, 544–557 (1965).
Ralls, K.: Auditory sensitivity in mice: Peromyscus and Mus musculus. Anim. Behav. 15, 123–128 (1967).
Suga, N.: Recovery cycles and responses to frequency modulated tone pulses in auditory neurons of echolocating bats. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 175, 50–80 (1964a).
—: Single unit activity in cochlear nucleus and inferior colliculus of echo-locating bats. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 172, 449–474 (1964b).
—: Analysis of frequency modulated sound by auditory neurones of echolocating bats. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 179, 26–53 (1965a).
—: Functional properties of auditory neurons in the cortex of echolocating bats. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 181, 671–700 (1965b).
—: Analysis of frequency-modulated and complex sounds by single auditory neurones of bats. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 198, 51–80 (1968).
—: Echo-ranging neurons in the inferior colliculus of bats. Science 170, 449–452 (1970).
Vasiliev, A. G.: A comparative description of the auditory system of bats: Vespertilionidae and Rhinolophidae (electrophysiological data). Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 175, 1414–1417 (1967).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Grinnell, A.D., Hagiwara, S. Studies of auditory neurophysiology in non-echolocating bats, and adaptations for echolocation in one genus, Rousettus . Z. vergl. Physiologie 76, 82–96 (1972). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00395501
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00395501