Summary
An electronic simulated target apparatus was used in a two-experiment study to compare the target detection performance of an echolocating bottlenose dolphin with an optimal receiver. Random Gaussian noise with a relatively flat spectrum from 20 to 160 kHz was used as a masking source. Experiment I was conducted to establish a technique for estimating the echo energy-to-noise ratio,E e /N, at the dolphin's threshold of detection. Dolphins typically vary the amplitude of their emitted signal over a large range making it difficult to estimateE e /N. In the first part of experiment I, the simulated echo was a double click, the pulses separated by 200 μs, with each pulse being a replica of the dolphin's transmitted signal. A staircase psychophysical procedure was used to obtain the detection threshold, and the echo energy-to-noise ratio based on the highest amplitude click emitted per trial, (E e /N)max, was determined at each reversal point. The second echo type consisted of one of the animal's echolocation clicks, previously measured, digitized and stored in an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM). The electronic target simulator was modified so that every time the dolphin emitted an echolocation signal, the EPROM was triggered to produce two pulses separated by 200 μs. On any trial, the EPROM signal was played back at a fixed amplitude, regardless of the amplitude of the dolphin's emitted signal. TheE e /N obtained with the EPROM signal at threshold was found to be 2.9 dB lower than (E e /N)max obtained with the normal phantom target. Therefore an estimate ofE e /N can be obtained by subtracting 2.9 dB from (E e /N)max.
Experiment II was conducted to obtain isosensitivity data that could be plotted in an ROC (receiver operating characteristic) format. The response bias of the dolphin was manipulated by varying the food reinforcement payoff matrix. In terms of the ratio of correct detections to correct rejections, the payoff matrix was varied over four values: 1∶1, 4∶1, 8∶1, and 1∶4. A modified method of constants procedure was used to obtain the dolphin target detection performance data. Each session consisted of two 20-trial blocks in which a strong echo was used in the first block and a weak echo in the second block. The energy-to-noise ratio required by an optimal detector to approximate the dolphin's performance was obtained by determining the appropriate detection sensitivity,d′, that best fitted the dolphin's data plotted in an ROC format. The results of experiment II indicated that the dolphin required approximately 7.4 dB higherE e /N than an optimal detector to detect the phantom target.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Abbreviations
- β :
-
response bias
- d′ :
-
detection sensitivity
- E e :
-
echo energy flux density
- EPROM :
-
erasable programmable read-only memory
- N :
-
noise spectral density
- p(t) :
-
instantaneous acoustic pressure
- P(Y/SN) :
-
probability of detection
- P(Y/N) :
-
probability of false alarm
- ROC :
-
receiver-operating-characteristics
- SE :
-
source energy flux density
References
Au WWL (1980) Echolocation signals of the Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) in open waters. In: Busnel R-G, Fish JF (eds) Animal sonar systems. Plenum, New York, pp 251–282
Au WWL, Carder DA, Penner RH, Scronce BL (1985) Demonstration of adaptation in beluga whale echolocation signals. J Acoust Soc Am 77:726–730
Au WWL, Martin SW, Moore PWB (1987) Phantom electronic target for dolphin sonar research. J Acoust Soc Am 82:711–713
Au WWL, Moore PWB, Pawloski DA (1988) Detection of complex echoes in noise by an echolocating dolphin. J Acoust Soc Am 83:662–668
Au WWL, Penner RH (1981) Target detection in noise by echolocating Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphins. J Acoust Soc Am 70:687–693
Au WWL, Snyder KJ (1980) Long-range target detection in open waters by an echolocating Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). J Acoust Soc Am 68:1077–1084
Au WWL, Turl CW (1984) Dolphin biosonar detection in clutter: variation in the payoff matrix. J Acoust Soc Am 76:955–957
Elliott PB (1964) Appendix 1-Tables ofd′. In: Swet J (ed) Signal detection and recognition by human observers. John Wiley, New York, pp 651–684
Mohl B (1986) Detection by a pipistrelle bat of normal and reversed replica of its sonar pulses. Acustica 61:75–82
Murchison AE (1980) Detection range and range resolution of echolocating bottlenose porpoise (Tursiops truncatus). In: Busnel R-G, Fish JF (eds) Animal sonar systems. Plenum, New York, pp 43–70
Penner RH, Turl CW, Au WWL (1986) Target detection by the beluga using a surface-reflected path. J Acoust Soc Am 80:1842–1843
Petersen WW, Birdsall TG, Fox WC (1954) The theory of signal detectability. Trans IRE, PGIT, 4:171–212
Schusterman RJ (1974) Low false-alarm rates in signal detection by marine mammals. J Acoust Soc Am 55:845–848
Schusterman RJ, Barrett R, Moore RWB (1975) Detection of underwater signals by a California Sea Lion and a Bottlenose Porpoise: variation in the payoff matrix. J Acoust Soc Am 57:1526–1532
Snodgrass JG (1972) Theory and experimentation in signal detection: Part 1. Life Science Associates, Badwin, New York
Troest N, Mohl B (1986) The detection of phantom targets in noise by serotine bats: negative evidence for the coherent receiver. J Comp Physiol A 159:559–567
Turl CW, Penner RH, Au WWL (1987) Comparison of target detection capabilities of the beluga and bottlenose dolphin. J Acoust Soc Am 82:1487–1491
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Au, W.W.L., Pawloski, D.A. A comparison of signal detection between an echolocating dolphin and an optimal receiver. J. Comp. Physiol. 164, 451–458 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00610439
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00610439