Sound Research WIKINDX |
![]() |
Resource type: Journal Article Language: en: English Peer reviewed DOI: 10.2307/1378784 ID no. (ISBN etc.): 0022-2372 BibTeX citation key: Peterson1969 Email resource to friend View all bibliographic details |
Categories: General Keywords: Animals, Hearing, Ultrasound Creators: Heaton, Peterson, Wruble Collection: Journal of Mammalogy |
Views: 62/62
|
Abstract |
Peripheral auditory responses were measured in at least one representative from each of the seven families of fissiped carnivores. The cochlear microphonic potential (CM) recorded from the membrana tympani secundaria (round window membrane) was used as the index of function. Substantial differences in CM sensitivity, band width, and maximum output were noted in the 12 species tested. Based upon linear approximations of the mean sensitivity data for each species, four distinct response patterns could be established. The maximum output level of those species placed in less efficient sensitivity groups was roughly two-thirds that of species placed in the most efficient sensitivity group. No clear-cut relation was found between the functionally based groupings and accepted mammalian classification. However, estimates of peripheral auditory function may be distorted by certain artifacts associated with recording CM from the membrana tympani secundaria and with the surgical procedures used.
|
Notes |
Referred to by Barber (2020) and colleagus as evidence of non-domestic dogs' hearing ranges (although the validity of the methods are questioned). Barber, A., Wilkinson, A., Montealegre-Z, F., Ratcliffe, V., Guo, K., & Mills, D. (2020). A comparison of hearing and auditory functioning between dogs and humans. Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews, 15, 45–94. Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard |