Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Masking by harmonic complexes in budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus).

M R Leek1, M L Dent, R J Dooling

  • 1Army Audiology and Speech Center, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C. 20307, USA.

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
|March 30, 2000
PubMed
Summary

Budgerigar hearing differs from humans regarding auditory masking. Unlike humans, budgerigars showed minimal differences in masking effectiveness between positive and negative Schroeder-phase harmonic complexes, suggesting unique avian auditory processing.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

A psychophysical approach to measuring the threshold for acoustic stimulation in zebrafish (Danio rerio).

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America·2020
Same author

Control of vocal production in budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus): selective reinforcement, call differentiation, and stimulus control.

Behavioural processes·2014
Same author

Differential reinforcement of an approach response in zebrafish (Danio rerio).

Behavioural processes·2013
Same author

An automated device for appetitive conditioning in zebrafish (Danio rerio).

Zebrafish·2012
Same author

Species differences in the identification of acoustic stimuli by birds.

Behavioural processes·2008
Same author

Amphibious auditory responses of the American alligator (Alligator mississipiensis).

Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology·2002

Area of Science:

  • Psychoacoustics
  • Auditory Neuroscience
  • Comparative Biology

Background:

  • Auditory masking by harmonic complexes in humans depends on both frequency and phase spectrum.
  • Harmonic complexes with modulated temporal waveforms typically cause less masking than those with flatter envelopes.
  • Schroeder phases influence masking effectiveness, with negative Schroeder phases often causing more masking in humans.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the masking effectiveness of harmonic complexes in budgerigars.
  • To compare budgerigar masking thresholds with those of humans.
  • To determine the role of phase spectrum in auditory masking in budgerigars.

Main Methods:

  • Operant conditioning and the method of constant stimuli were used to assess pure-tone masking.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Masking was examined using harmonic complexes with two different fundamental frequencies.
  • Budgerigars' thresholds were measured at various masker levels.

    • Main Results:

    • Budgerigar masking thresholds showed minimal differences between positive and negative Schroeder-phase waveforms.
    • Positive Schroeder-phase complexes were more effective maskers in budgerigars, reversing the human effect.
    • Phase selection was relevant, with coherent phases releasing from masking compared to random phases.

    Conclusions:

    • Psychoacoustic differences in auditory masking between budgerigars and humans may stem from peripheral auditory system variations.
    • Differences in traveling wave mechanics and spectral tuning in avian versus mammalian auditory systems are implicated.
    • This study highlights species-specific differences in auditory perception and processing.