Insect Hearing Research Articles

Hearing in a primitive ensiferan: the auditory system of Cyphoderris monstrosa (Orthoptera: Haglidae)

1. Insects of the family Haglidae are relicts of primitive Ensifera. Members of this group display acoustic behaviour in the typical ensiferan pattern, with males producing stereotyped acoustic signals by tegminal stridulation. They are closely related to the major groups of acoustic Ensifera, but their auditory system has not been previously studied. I present here a description of the morphology, and physiology of the peripheral auditory system of Cyphoderris monstrosa. 2. The tympana of C. monstrosa are similar to those of Tettigoniidae, but less well-differentiated from normal leg cuticle. The acoustic trachea is well-developed, but does not form a single, continuous tube in the leg proximal to the tympana. The organization of the auditory organ is similar to the Tettigoniidae, with the tibial organ comprising the subgenual organ, intermediate organ, and crista acustica. Projections of the tibial organ sensory cells to the prothoracic ganglion are also typical of acoustic Orthoptera. The meso- and metathoracic legs possess tibial organs similar to that of the prothoracic leg, although lacking tympana and well-developed acoustic tracheae. Central projections of the mesothoracic tibial organ are similar to those of the prothoracic. 3. Auditory whole nerve responses are not tuned to the frequency of the species calling song. Auditory best frequency (BF) is 2 kHz; calling song frequency is 12 kHz. Threshold intensity levels at BF are typical for insect hearing organs (35–45 dB SPL). The response of the auditory organ is not strongly directional at the calling song frequency. Occlusion of the acoustic trachea has no effect on the sensitivity, tuning, or directionality of the auditory system. Occlusion of either of the tympana alone also has no effect on auditory responses, but occlusion of both tympana leads to a marked decrease in sensitivity. Tuning is not affected. The tibial organ of the mesothoracic leg is sensitive to airborne sound at low frequencies (BF = 1 kHz) with thresholds comparable to the ear. 4. The auditory system of C. monstrosa is a pressure receiver, adapted to low frequency sensitivity. This low frequency tuning, in contrast to the calling song frequency, suggests an auditory system adapted to another function in addition to intraspecific communication.

Insect hearing in the field

This review summarizes the recent experimental work on the complex sensory ecology of insects and highlights possible ways by which may communicate by airborne sound in its natural world

Insect hearing in the field

Insect hearing in the field

Insect hearing in the field

Insect hearing in the field

Insect hearing in the field

1. For the bushcricketTettigonia viridissima a portable recording unit was constructed which enabled long-term extracellular recordings of single and identified auditory nerve cells in the field. Thus, aspects of sound reception and of directional hearing could be studied in the animal's natural environment. 2. The applicability of the technique is demonstrated in two examples. Remarkable hearing distances of 40–50 m were found in a grassland habitat; in denser bushland, these distances are reduced by about 20 m (Fig. 2). Once the stimulus is suprathreshold, the gross temporal structure of the song is well encoded in the activity of the omeganeuron even within a reflecting and scattering vegetation. 3. By recording the activity of a pair of directionally-sensitive interneurons in the field we have direct experimental evidence that directional information is provided at remarkable communication distances and strongly depends on the spatial configuration between sender and receiver (Fig. 3).

Central mechanism of hearing and sound localization in insects

The central auditory neural network was electrophysiologically examined in nine species belonging to the Tettigoniidae, Gryllidae, and Acridiidae, and it was found that the central mechanism of hearing was different from family to family and even in the same family. In Tettigoniidae, the T large fibre was commonly found but not the inhibitory neural network. The T large fibres of Gampsocleis buergeri with the inhibitory neural network showed a marked ability for sound localization, but those of Mecopoda elongata without it did not. The inhibitory interaction made the intensity and time differences large and accentuated sound localization.

Central Mechanism of Hearing in Insects

ABSTRACT The impulses from the tympanic organ are transmitted at the prothoracic ganglion to a central neuron, the auditory T large fibre, which lies in the cord between the brain and the metathoracic ganglion. The impulses in the T large fibre are conducted rostrally and caudally with the same discharge pattern. Information is sent up to the brain, and down to the metathoracic ganglion, after a delay of about 12 msec. The impulses from the cereal hair sensilla are transmitted to two similar auditory C large fibres which lie in the cord between the metathoracic and last (6th) abdominal ganglia and are then sent up to the mesothoracic ganglia by other auditory large fibres. Central inhibitory interaction between the impulses from the tympanic nerves of the two sides are shown by a marked increase of impulses in the T large fibre following section of one of the tympanic nerves. No inhibitory interaction is found between the impulses from the two cereal nerves. The auditory T large fibre receives not only the excitatory effect from the ipsilateral tympanic nerve at the prothoracic ganglion, but also the inhibitory and weak excitatory effects from the contralateral one. The response range of the T large fibre is narrower than the threshold curve of the tympanic nerve and corresponds with one type of response range in the tympanic neurons. The response ranges of the C large fibres correspond closely with the threshold curve of the cereal nerve. A large difference in threshold between the two T large fibres is found in the response to sound incident from the side. The number of impulses in the T large fibre nearer to the sound source is greater than in that farther from the source. The difference in the number of impulses between the two T large fibres is most marked in the response to sound of the frequency which is dominant in stridulation. This difference is due to the mutual inhibitory interaction of neurons which modifies the number of impulses without changing the threshold of the tympanic large fibre. It is suggested that the central inhibitory interaction increases the information about a sound source and plays an important role in the mechanism of the directional sense. The stridulation of the group activates the tympanic nerve and evokes synchronized discharge in the T large fibre, but scarcely at all in the primary C large fibre. The tympanic organ and its neural network seem well adapted to reception of stridulation. It is concluded that though neither of the two sound receptive organs—the tympanic organ and the cereal hair sensilla—can perform frequency analysis, the insect may be able to do so by making use of both organs, since they have different frequency ranges and are served by different auditory large-fibre tracts.

Neural Mechanism of Hearing in Insects

ABSTRACT The frequency response ranges of the tympanal and cereal nerve were measured in ten species belonging to four families, Cicadidae, Acridiidae, Tettigoniidae and Gryllidae. The tympanal organs of Acridiidae and Tettigoniidae responded to ultrasonic waves and the most effective frequency was very high (> 10 kc./s.), while the response ranges of the other two families, Cicadidae and Gryllidae, were within that of man. The response ranges of the cereal nerves (lower) and tympanal nerves (higher) were partly overlapping. Stridulation consisted of pulsatory sounds and had species-specific rhythms, to which the tympanal nerves responded with synchronous discharge. The dominant frequency range involved in stridulation agreed well with the frequency range to which the tympanal organ of the same insect was most sensitive. The threshold of the tympanal nerve varied with different directions of incident sound, especially for ultrasonic waves, indicating the possibility of directional sense. Tympanal neurons of Gampsocleis buergeri were referable to two types having different response ranges. The curves relating number of spikes per second to intensity of stimulus were sigmoid and almost parallel for different frequencies. In Discussion it is pointed out that although no single receptor organ is able to discriminate stimulus frequency, an insect which has different sound receptors on various parts of its body may have some power of discrimination.

Electric responses of auditory neurons in cat to sound stimulation.

ArticlesELECTRIC RESPONSES OF AUDITORY NEURONS IN CAT TO SOUND STIMULATIONYasuji Katsuki, Tadaaki Sumi, Heiichi Uchiyama, and Takeshi WatanabeYasuji Katsuki, Tadaaki Sumi, Heiichi Uchiyama, and Takeshi WatanabePublished Online:01 Nov 1958https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1958.21.6.569MoreSectionsPDF (3 MB)Download PDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesGet permissionsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInWeChat Previous Back to Top Next Download PDF FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation Cited ByHuman Hearing SystemSpectral-shape preference of primary auditory cortex neurons in awake catsBrain Research, Vol. 1024, No. 1-2Spectral-edge sensitivity of primary auditory cortex neurons in alert catsBrain Research, Vol. 1014, No. 1-2CORRELATION FACTORS DESCRIBING PRIMARY AND SPATIAL SENSATIONS OF SOUND FIELDSJournal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 258, No. 3DISSIMILARITY JUDGMENTS IN RELATION TO TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL FACTORS FOR THE SOUND FIELD IN AN EXISTING HALLJournal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 258, No. 3Review of the Roles of Temporal and Place Coding of Frequency in Speech Discrimination8 July 2009 | Acta Oto-Laryngologica, Vol. 119, No. 4Sharpening of Frequency Tuning by Inhibition in the Thalamic Auditory Nucleus of the Mustached BatNobuo Suga, Yunfeng Zhang, and Jun Yan1 April 1997 | Journal of Neurophysiology, Vol. 77, No. 4History of neurophysiology in JapanComparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part C: Comparative Pharmacology, Vol. 98, No. 1Electrophysiological study of sympathoexcitatory structures of the bulbar ventrolateral surface as related to vasomotor regulationNeuroscience, Vol. 17, No. 1Auditory evoked potentials from the human midbrain: Slow brain stem responsesElectroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, Vol. 53, No. 6Single unit responses recorded from the first order neuron of the pigeon auditory systemBrain Research, Vol. 101, No. 2Hysteresis of Tuning Curves of the Cochlear Nerve FibersProceedings of the Japan Academy, Vol. 52, No. 7Digital modelling of lateral inhibition with reference to the auditory systemJournal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 35, No. 3The physiology of auditory frequency analysisProgress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, Vol. 28Absolute pitch in humans, its variations and possible connections with other known rhythmic phenomenaProgress in Neurobiology, Vol. 1Auditory Nerve Response to Speech SoundsProceedings of the Japan Academy, Vol. 49, No. 7Response patterns of single units in the olfactory bulb of the rat to odorBrain Research, Vol. 47, No. 2Modelling the butterfly visual pathwayJournal of Insect Physiology, Vol. 18, No. 10The response of auditory cortex neurons in cat to various parameters of acoustical stimulationBrain Research, Vol. 28, No. 3Single unit studies in the midbrain auditory area of CaimanZeitschrift f�r Vergleichende Physiologie, Vol. 71, No. 3Auditory responses of units in the ovoid nucleus and cerebrum (Field L) of the ring doveBrain Research, Vol. 24, No. 2Volume-conducted potentials in response to auditory stimuli as detected by averaging in the catElectroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, Vol. 28, No. 6Discharges from utricular receptors in the catExperimental Neurology, Vol. 26, No. 1Quantified unit background activity in the waking cat during paralysis, anesthesia and cochlear destructionBrain Research, Vol. 15, No. 2Progressive alterations in cochlear nucleus, inferior colliculus, and medial geniculate responses during acoustic habituationExperimental Neurology, Vol. 25, No. 1The functional organization of the auditory pathwaysJournal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 8, No. 1Neurone im nucleus cochlearis ventralis, die von homolateral durch elektrischen reiz an der schneckenbasiswindung erregt wurden: Zentrifugale hemmung durch kontralaterale beschallung (meerschweinchen)Archiv f�r Klinische und Experimentelle Ohren- Nasen- und Kehlkopfheilkunde, Vol. 189, No. 2XLI Stimulus Coding in the Cochlear Nucleus29 June 2016 | Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, Vol. 74, No. 2Studies with artificial neurons, II: analog of the external spiral innervation of the cochleaKybernetik, Vol. 1, No. 3Single Unit Activity in the Auditory Cortex of an Unanaesthetized MonkeyProceedings of the Japan Academy, Vol. 36, No. 7Electrophysiological Studies on Hearing in Common Insects in JapanProceedings of the Japan Academy, Vol. 34, No. 9 More from this issue > Volume 21Issue 6November 1958Pages 569-588 https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1958.21.6.569PubMed13599048History Published online 1 November 1958 Published in print 1 November 1958 Metrics

Electrophysiological Studies on Hearing in Common Insects in Japan

Electrophysiological Studies on Hearing in Common Insects in Japan

HEARING IN INSECTS

Summary1. The difficulties attending precise definition of auditory organs are discussed and a sketch of the early work on insect hearing is given.2. A brief account is given of the nature of sound and of the physical conditions which different types of auditory receptor must fulfil.3. The tympanic organs of insects, though undoubtedly of independent origin in the different groups of insects in which they occur, are shown to have a common structural plan; and the implications of this fact are discussed.4. An account is given of the important experimental work of Regen which first conclusively established the auditory function of tympanic organs in Orthoptera, and of subsequent work upon these organs in fulfil., Lepidoptera and Hemiptera.5. Experimental work indicating that tympanic organs may mediate a qualitative discrimination between different sounds is reviewed, and a tentative explanation of these observations is submitted.

Hearing in insects: The nature of the response of certain receptors to auditory stimuli

The auditory receptors of the Orthoptera include tympanal organs and hair sensilla. The former have long been recognized as subserving an aural function, but the latter have, in this group, only recently been shown to respond to auditory stimuli (Pumphrey and Rawdon-Smith, 1936). Wever and Bray (1933), using an amplifier and telephones, have attempted to analyse the nervous response from the tympanal organs of the foreleg of crickets ( Lyogryllus campestris ). Their operational technique may be shortly described. Without previous dissection, a fine wire electrode was introduced into the leg of the experimental animal, the return lead consisting of a pad applied to the animal’s body. Owing to the fact that no direct contact was certainly made with the tympanal nerve and that the central ends of the leg nerves were not severed, responses of several kinds were obtained. Of these, an asynchronous response, described as producing a shushing noise in the telephones, was thought to arise from the tympanal organ; but no certain indication was given that this response was not partly or wholly of tactile origin. This point is of importance since, as we shall show in this paper, a response from certain types of tactile receptor may be readily elicited by an auditory stimulus. Similar criticisms apply to the recent results of Wever (1935) on the tympanic organ of the grasshopper (Arphea sulphurea).

A new method for the study of hearing in insects

A new method for the study of hearing in insects

Smell and Hearing in Insects

IN NATURE (vol. xvii. pp. 45, 62, 82, 102, 162-3), which has just reached me, I see a discussion as to the senses of smelling and hearing in moths, to which I add my mite as an old observer.

Hearing and Smell in Insects

ALL that I have observed leads me to believe that any sensitiveness shown by insects to sound is due to a diffused sensibility to vibration rather than to a differentiated sense like our own. This will sufficiently explain the behaviour of J. C.'s moths (NATURE, vol. xvii. p. 45), and my own larvæ (NATURE, vol xvil p. 102). In the one case the ringing glass, and in the other the vibrant wood of the feeding-box communicated the alarm. If anyone, an hour after his kitchen has been left in darkness and quiet, will enter it as gently as possible, without shoes or light, and then, having no contact with anything, other than the unavoidable one of his sock-muffled feet with the floor, will speak suddenly and sharply, I believe he will find that not a cockroach shows any signs of alarm. If, on the other hand, he should drop something heavy abruptly, or enter with his usual step in boots, there is a stampede; but even then nothing to compare with the commotion caused by the introduction of light.

Hearing in Insects

MY daughter bred this summer a number of the larvae of Sphinx ligustri and Metopsilus elepenor, and I was much struck with the extreme sensitiveness to the sound of the voice—especially of the former. The child's treble I observed did not affect them so sharply; but at the first word I uttered they invariably started, and remained some time motionless, with head drawn back, after their manner. I was disposed to attribute it to the vibration set up in objects around by sounds toward the deeper end of the scale, as I have felt a form tremble under me at the deep bass notes of a strong singer; but it had all the appearance and effects of hearing.

Sense of Hearing in Insects and Birds. “Towering” of Birds

I AM glad to learn from Mr. M'Lachlan that stridulation is known to occur in several species of Lepidoptera; for this shows that the sense of hearing in these insects is probably of general occurrence. With regard to the sense of hearing in birds, I did not say in my previous letter that thrushes, &c., were guided to their food exclusively by this sense; indeed it would be a very anomalous thing if animals which possess so keen a sense of sight are not in the habit of using it, as Mr. McLachlan suggests, in any profitable way they can. But that thrushes trust very largely to their sense of hearing in their search for food—especially in certain conditions of the ground—no one, I think, who has observed the process can doubt. The bird runs rapidly some twelve to twenty feet in a straight line; it then stops. suddenly, elevates its head, and remains motionless in a listening attitude; after pausing thus for a few seconds, it again runs to about the same distance as before, again stops to listen, and so on. These successive excursions are usually made in the same direction; but every now and then, during the process of listening, the thrush apparently hears a sound proceeding from some point within the circle which it has last entered; immediately the course of progression is deflected at an angle from the continuous straight line in which ail the previous excursions were made, and, either with a single rush or after one or two brief pauses to make quite sure of the exact spot, the bird may nearly always be seen to find a worm.

Sense of Hearing in Birds and Insects

IN respect to “The Sense of Hearing in Birds,” the habit of pattering with the feet while seeking food, which is common to many worm-eating birds, seems to preclude the idea that such birds at least depend to any great extent upon their powers of hearing. Gulls frequently tread or patter with their feet while seeking food. The object being clearly to discover, from some slight movement, the whereabouts of their hidden prey. Plovers, doubtless with the same object, vibrate one foot rapidly with tremulous motion on the ground. Now the plover is essentially a worm-catching bird, more so even, probably, than the thrush. Light-footed, active yet stealthy in its movements, quick-sighted, and certainly quick of hearing, the plover, when feeding, runs a little way, like the thrush, then stops, with head erect, looking intently; listening it might well be thought but for the tremulous motion of its foot. The plover, at such time, trusts without doubt to sight and not to its sense of hearing.

Sense of Hearing in Birds and Insects

I do not know whether ornithologists are acquainted with the peculiar manner in which curlews frequently obtain their food on sandy flats which have been left bare by the tide. The birds force their long bills into the wet sand as far as the nostrils, and then again withdraw it, leaving a small hole, which, when probed, is found to be only just large enough to have taken in the bill. The animal, therefore, can only have made a single prolonged push without adding any lateral or exploring movements of the bill, as birds which feed in mud may be observed to do. Now it cannot be supposed that curlews adopt this mode of feeding without obtaining from it some degree of profit. Neither can it be supposed that they make their thrusts into the sand at random; for, their bills being so pointed and slender, the birds would usually require to make a vast number of ineffectual thrusts before they happened to hit upon a worm or other edible object. The question therefore is, How do the birds know the precise spots where their victims lie buried in the sand? That this knowledge is not derived by sight I am quite sure, for I have repeatedly observed innumerable curlew marks of the kind described occurring on tracts of sand which, in virtue of their high level, presented a perfectly smooth and uniform surface. I can therefore only suppose that the birds are guided in their probings by their sense of hearing. Doubtless it is difficult to believe that this sense is so delicate and precise as to enable the curlew to perceive so exceedingly slight a sound as that which must be caused by the movement, say, of a small worm at a distance of ten or twelve inches from the surface of the sand, and at the same time to localise the exact spot beneath the surface from which so slight a sound proceeds. I cannot see, however, that any other explanation is open, and perhaps the one now offered may not seem so incredible if we remember the case of the thrush. No one, I think, can observe this bird feeding and doubt that it finds its worms and grubs almost exclusively by the sense of hearing. And if the distance which it runs between successive pauses for listening represents—as we cannot but suppose it must—the diameter of the circle within which this bird is able to hear the movements of a worm, I think that the hypothesis I have just advanced with regard to the curlew ceases to be improbable.