nach oben

Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology

02.04.2024 | Review

Echolocating Bats Have Evolved Decreased Susceptibility to Noise-Induced Temporary Hearing Losses

verfasst von: Andrea Megela Simmons, James A. Simmons

Erschienen in: Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Glenis Long championed the application of quantitative psychophysical methods to understand comparative hearing abilities across species. She contributed the first psychophysical studies of absolute and masked hearing sensitivities in an auditory specialist, the echolocating horseshoe bat. Her data demonstrated that this bat has hyperacute frequency discrimination in the 83-kHz range of its echolocation broadcast. This specialization facilitates the bat’s use of Doppler shift compensation to separate echoes of fluttering insects from concurrent echoes of non-moving objects. In this review, we discuss another specialization for hearing in a species of echolocating bat that contributes to perception of echoes within a complex auditory scene. Psychophysical and behavioral studies with big brown bats show that exposures to long duration, intense wideband or narrowband ultrasonic noise do not induce significant increases in their thresholds to echoes and do not impair their ability to orient through a naturalistic sonar scene containing multiple distracting echoes. Thresholds of auditory brainstem responses also remain low after intense noise exposures. These data indicate that big brown bats are not susceptible to temporary threshold shifts as measured in comparable paradigms used with other mammals, at least within the range of stimulus parameters that have been tested so far. We hypothesize that echolocating bats have evolved a decreased susceptibility to noise-induced hearing losses as a specialization for echolocation in noisy environments.

Long GR (1994) Psychophysics. In: Fay RR, Popper AN (eds) Comparative hearing: mammals. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 18–56CrossRef

Slabbekoorn S, Dooling RJ, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds) (2018) Effects of anthropogenic noise on animals. Springer Nature New York and ASA Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8574-6

Griffin DR (1958) Listening in the dark. Yale University Press, reprinted Cornell University Press 1986

Simmons JA (1971) Echolocation in bats: signal processing of echoes for target range. Science 171(3974):925–928. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.171.3974.925CrossRefPubMed

Dalland JI (1965) Hearing sensitivity in bats. Science 150:1185–1186. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.150.3700.1185CrossRefPubMed

Long GR, Schnitzler H-U (1975) Behavioural audiograms from the bat, Rhinolophus ferrumequinum. J Comp Physiol 100:211–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00614531CrossRef

Schnitzler H-U, Denzinger A (2011) Auditory fovea and Doppler shift compensation: adaptations for flutter detection in echolocating bats using CF-FM signals. J Comp Physiol A 197:541–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-010-0569-6CrossRef

Suga N, Neuweiler G, Möller J (1975) Peripheral auditory tuning for fine frequency analysis by the CF-FM bat, Rhinolophus ferrumequinum. IV. Properties of peripheral auditory neurons. J Comp Physiol 106:111–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00606576CrossRef

Bruns V (1976) Peripheral auditory tuning for fine frequency analysis by the CF-FM bat, Rhinolophus ferrumequinum. II. Frequency mapping in the cochlea. J Comp Physiol 106:87–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00606574CrossRef

10.

Lattenkamp EZ, Nagy M, Drexl M, Vernes SC, Wiegrebe L, Knörnschild M (2021) Hearing sensitivity and amplitude coding in bats are differentially shaped by echolocation calls and social calls. Proc R Soc B 288:20202600. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.2600CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Long GR (1977) Masked auditory thresholds from the bat Rhinolophus ferrumequinum. J Comp Physiol 116:247–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00605406CrossRef

12.

Fay RR (1988) Comparative psychophysics. Hear Res 34(3):295–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5955(88)90009-3CrossRefPubMed

13.

Suthers RA, Summers CA (1980) Behavioral audiogram and masked thresholds of the megachiropteran echolocating bat, Rousettus. J Comp Physiol 136:227–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00657537CrossRef

14.

Bohn KM, Boughman JW, Wilkinson GS, Moss CF (2004) Auditory sensitivity and frequency selectivity in greater spear-nosed bats suggest specializations for acoustic communication. J Comp Physiol A 190:185–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-003-0485-0CrossRef

15.

von Stebut B, Schmidt S (2001) Frequency discrimination threshold at search call frequencies in the echolocating bat, Eptesicus fuscus. J Comp Physiol A 187:287–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-010-0200CrossRef

16.

Long GR (1980) Further studies of masking in the greater horseshoe bat, Rhinolophus ferrumequinum. In: Busnel R-G, Fish JF (eds) Animal sonar systems. Plenum Press, New York, pp 929–932CrossRef

17.

Griffin DR, McCue JJG, Grinnell AD (1963) The resistance of bats to jamming. J Exp Zool 152:229–250CrossRef

18.

Holderied MW, Korine C, Fenton M, Parsons S, Robson S, Jones G (2005) Echolocation call intensity in the aerial hawking bat Eptesicus bottae (Vespertilionidae) studied using stereo videogrammetry. J Exp Biol 208:1321–1327. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.01528CrossRefPubMed

19.

Jakobsen L, Brinklov S, Surlykke A (2013) Intensity and directionality of bat echolocation signals. Front Physiol 4:89. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2013.00089CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Stilz WP, Schnitzler H-U (2012) Estimation of the acoustic range of bat echolocation for extended targets. J Acoust Soc Am 132:1765–1775CrossRefPubMed

21.

Hartley D, Suthers R (1989) The sound emission pattern of the echolocating bat, Eptesicus fuscus. J Acoust Soc Am 85:1348–1351. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.397466CrossRef

22.

Ghose K, Moss CF (2003) The sonar beam pattern of a flying bat as it tracks tethered insects. J Acoust Soc Am 114:1120–1131. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1589754CrossRefPubMed

23.

Ming C, Bates ME, Simmons JA (2020) How frequency hopping suppresses pulse-echo ambiguity in bat biosonar. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 17(29):17288–17295. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2001105117CrossRef

24.

Smotherman MS, Simmons AM, Simmons JA (2021) How noise affects bats and what it reveals about their biosonar systems. In: Lim B, Fenton B, Brigham M, Mistry S, Kurta A, Gillam E, Russell A, Ortega J (eds) 50 years of bat research: foundations and new frontiers. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 61–76CrossRef

25.

Hiryu S, Bates ME, Simmons JA, Riquimaroux H (2010) FM echolocating bats shift frequencies to avoid broadcast-echo ambiguity in clutter. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:7048–7053. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1000429107CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Moss CF, Bohn K, Gilkenson H, Surlykke A (2006) Active listening for spatial orientation in a complex auditory scene. PLoS Biol 4:615–626. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040079CrossRef

27.

Petrites AE, Eng OS, Mowlds DS, Simmons JA, DeLong CM (2009) Interpulse interval modulation by echolocating big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) in different densities of obstacle clutter. J Comp Physiol A 195:603–617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-009-0435-6CrossRef

28.

Kothari NB, Wohlgemuth MJ, Hulgard K, Surlykke A, Moss CF (2014) Timing matters: sonar call groups facilitate target localization in bats. Front Physiol 5:168. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2014.00168CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Wheeler AR, Fulton KA, Gaudette JE, Simmons RA, Matsuo I, Simmons JA (2016) Echolocating big brown bats, Eptesicus fuscus, modulate pulse intervals to overcome range ambiguity in cluttered surroundings. Front Behav Neurosci 10:125. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00125CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Tuninetti A, Ming C, Hom KN, Simmons JA, Simmons AM (2021) Spatiotemporal patterning of acoustic gaze in echolocating bats navigating gaps in clutter. iScience 24:102353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2021.102353CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Hage SR, Jiang T, Berquist SW, Feng J, Metzner W (2013) Ambient noise induces independent shifts in call frequency and amplitude within the Lombard effect in echolocating bats. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:4063–4068. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211533110CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Lu M, Zhang G, Luo J (2020) Echolocating bats exhibit differential amplitude compensation for noise interference at a sub-call level. J Exp Biol 223(19):jeb225284. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.225284CrossRefPubMed

33.

Tressler J, Smotherman MS (2009) Context-dependent effects of noise on echolocation pulse characteristics in free-tailed bats. J Comp Physiol A 195:923–934. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-009-0468-xCrossRef

34.

Simmons JA (2017) Noise interference with echo delay discrimination in bat sonar. J Acoust Soc Am 142(5):2942–2952. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5010159CrossRefPubMed

35.

Amichai E, Blumrosen G, Yovel Y (2015) Calling louder and longer: how bats use biosonar under severe acoustic interference from other bats. Proc Biol Sci 282:20152064. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.2064CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Luo J, Goerlitz HR, Brumm H, Wiegrebe L (2015) Linking the sender to the receiver: vocal adjustments by bats to maintain signal detection in noise. Sci Rep 5:18556. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep18556CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Ryan AF, Kujawa SG, Hammill T, Le Prell C, Kil J (2016) Temporary and permanent noise-induced threshold shifts: a review of basic and clinical observations. Otol Neurotol 37(8):e271–e275. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001071CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Southall BL, Bowles AE, Ellison WT, Finneran JJ, Gentry RL, Greene CR Jr, Kastak D, Ketten DR, Miller JH, Nachtigall PE, Richardson WJ, Thomas JA, Tyack PL (2007) Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: initial scientific recommendations. Aquat Mamm 33(4):411–521. https://doi.org/10.1578/AM.33.4.2007.411CrossRef

39.

Heffner HE, Koay G, Heffner RS (2008) Comparison of behavioral and auditory brainstem response measures of threshold shift in rats exposed to loud sound. J Acoust Soc Am 124(2):1093–1104. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2949518CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Simmons AM, Hom KN, Warnecke M, Simmons JA (2016) Broadband noise exposure does not affect hearing sensitivity in big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus). J Exp Biol 219(7):1031–1040. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.135319CrossRefPubMed

41.

Simmons AM, Hom KN, Simmons JA (2017) Big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) maintain hearing sensitivity after exposure to intense band-limited noise. J Acoust Soc Am 141(3):1481–1489. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4976820CrossRefPubMed

42.

McFadden SL, Simmons AM, Erbe C, Thomas JA (2022) Behavioral and physiological audiometric methods for animals. In: Erbe C, Thomas JA (eds) Exploring animal behavior through sounds. Vol. I, Methods. Springer Nature Cham Switzerland and ASA Press, pp 355–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97540-1CrossRef

43.

Finneran JJ (2015) Noise-induced hearing loss in marine mammals: a review of temporary threshold shift studies from 1996 to 2015. J Acoust Soc Am 138(3):1702–1726. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4927418CrossRefPubMed

44.

Hom KN, Linnenschmidt M, Simmons AM, Simmons JA (2016) Echolocation behavior in big brown bats is not impaired after intense broadband noise exposures. J Exp Biol 219(20):3253–3260. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.143578CrossRefPubMed

45.

Simmons AM, Ertman A, Hom KN, Simmons JA (2018) Big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) successfully navigate through clutter after exposure to intense band-limited sound. Sci Rep 8:13555. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-31872-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Fry RN, Tuninetti A, Simmons JA, Simmons AM (2024) Manipulating environmental clutter reveals dynamic active sensing strategies in big brown bats. Anim Behav Cognit 1:61–78. https://doi.org/10.26451/abc.11.01.04.2024CrossRef

47.

Gorga MP (1999) Predicting auditory sensitivity from auditory brainstem response measurements. Semin Hear 20:29–43. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0028-1089910CrossRef

48.

Stapells DR (2000) Threshold estimation by the tone-evoked auditory brainstem response: a literature meta-analysis. J Speech Lang Path Audiol 24(2):74–83. https://cjslpa.ca/files/2000_JSLPA_Vol_24/No_02_33-92/Stapells_JSLPA_2000.pdf

49.

Finneran JJ, Houser DS (2006) Comparison of in-air evoked potential and underwater behavioral hearing thresholds in four bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus. J Acoust Soc Am 119:3181–3192. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2180208CrossRefPubMed

50.

Simmons AM, Boku S, Riquimaroux H, Simmons JA (2015) Auditory brainstem responses of Japanese house bats (Pipistrellus abramus) after exposure to high level broadband noise. J Acoust Soc Am 138:2430–2437. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4931901CrossRefPubMed

51.

Liu Z, Chen P, Li YY, Li MW, Liu Q, Pan WL, Xu DM, Bai J, Zhang LB, Tang J, Shi P (2021) Cochlear hair cells of echolocating bats are immune to intense noise. J Genet Genom 48:984–993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgg.2021.06.007CrossRef

52.

Wever EG, Vernon JA (1961) The protective mechanisms of the bat’s ear. Ann Otol Rhino Laryn 70:5–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/000348946107000101CrossRef

53.

Suga N, Jen PH (1975) Peripheral control of acoustic signals in the auditory system of echolocating bats. J Exp Biol 62:277–311. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.62.2.277CrossRefPubMed

54.

Jen PH, Suga N (1976) Coordinated activities of middle-ear and laryngeal muscles in echolocating bats. Science 191:950–952. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251206CrossRefPubMed

55.

Kick SA, Simmons JA (1984) Automatic gain control in the bat’s sonar receiver and the neuroethology of echolocation. J Neurosci 4(11):2725–2737. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.04-11-02725.1984CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

56.

Henson OW Jr (1965) The activity and function of the middle ear muscles in echolocating bats. J Physiol Lond 180:871–887. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1965.sp007737CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

57.

Pollak G, Henson OW Jr (1973) Specialized functional aspects of the middle ear muscles in the bat, Chilonycteris parnellii. J Comp Physiol 84:167–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00697604CrossRef

58.

Surlykke A, Jakobsen L, Kalko EKV, Page RA (2013) Echolocation intensity and directionality of perching and flying fringe-lipped bats, Trachops cirrhosus (Phyllostomidae). Front Physiol 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2013.00143

59.

Tougaard J, Breedholm K, Madsen PT (2022) Thresholds for noise induced hearing loss in harbor porpoises and phocid seals. J Acoust Soc Am 151:4252–4263. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0011560CrossRefPubMed

60.

Weinberg MM, Retta NA, Schrode KM, Screven LA, Peterson JL, Moss CF, Sterbing S, Lauer AM (2021) Deafness in an auditory specialist, the big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus). Hear Res 412:108377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2021.108377CrossRefPubMed

61.

Edge ASB, Chen Z-Y (2008) Hair cell regeneration. Curr Opin Neurobiol 18:377–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2008.10.001CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

62.

Tarnovsky YC, Taiber S, Nissan Y, Boonman A, Assaf Y, Wilkinson GS, Avraham KB, Yovel Y (2023) Bats experience age-related hearing loss (presbycusis). Life Sci Alliance 6(6):e202201847. https://doi.org/10.26508/lsa.202201847CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Echolocating Bats Have Evolved Decreased Susceptibility to Noise-Induced Temporary Hearing Losses
verfasst von: Andrea Megela Simmons
James A. Simmons
Publikationsdatum: 02.04.2024
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology
Print ISSN: 1525-3961
Elektronische ISSN: 1438-7573
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-024-00941-6

Neu im Fachgebiet HNO

Erhebliches Risiko für Kehlkopfkrebs bei mäßiger Dysplasie

29.05.2024 Larynxkarzinom Nachrichten

Fast ein Viertel der Personen mit mäßig dysplastischen Stimmlippenläsionen entwickelt einen Kehlkopftumor. Solche Personen benötigen daher eine besonders enge ärztliche Überwachung.

Hörschwäche erhöht Demenzrisiko unabhängig von Beta-Amyloid

29.05.2024 Hörstörungen Nachrichten

Hört jemand im Alter schlecht, nimmt das Hirn- und Hippocampusvolumen besonders schnell ab, was auch mit einem beschleunigten kognitiven Abbau einhergeht. Und diese Prozesse scheinen sich unabhängig von der Amyloidablagerung zu ereignen.

„Übersichtlicher Wegweiser“: Lauterbachs umstrittener Klinik-Atlas ist online

17.05.2024 Klinik aktuell Nachrichten

Sie sei „ethisch geboten“, meint Gesundheitsminister Karl Lauterbach: mehr Transparenz über die Qualität von Klinikbehandlungen. Um sie abzubilden, lässt er gegen den Widerstand vieler Länder einen virtuellen Klinik-Atlas freischalten.

Betalaktam-Allergie: praxisnahes Vorgehen beim Delabeling

16.05.2024 Pädiatrische Allergologie Nachrichten

Die große Mehrheit der vermeintlichen Penicillinallergien sind keine. Da das „Etikett“ Betalaktam-Allergie oft schon in der Kindheit erworben wird, kann ein frühzeitiges Delabeling lebenslange Vorteile bringen. Ein Team von Pädiaterinnen und Pädiatern aus Kanada stellt vor, wie sie dabei vorgehen.

Update HNO

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Echolocating Bats Have Evolved Decreased Susceptibility to Noise-Induced Temporary Hearing Losses

Abstract

Neu im Fachgebiet HNO

Erhebliches Risiko für Kehlkopfkrebs bei mäßiger Dysplasie

Hörschwäche erhöht Demenzrisiko unabhängig von Beta-Amyloid

„Übersichtlicher Wegweiser“: Lauterbachs umstrittener Klinik-Atlas ist online

Betalaktam-Allergie: praxisnahes Vorgehen beim Delabeling

Update HNO

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Neu im Fachgebiet HNO

Erhebliches Risiko für Kehlkopfkrebs bei mäßiger Dysplasie

Hörschwäche erhöht Demenzrisiko unabhängig von Beta-Amyloid

„Übersichtlicher Wegweiser“: Lauterbachs umstrittener Klinik-Atlas ist online

Betalaktam-Allergie: praxisnahes Vorgehen beim Delabeling

Update HNO