Detection and discrimination of natural calls in masking noise by birds: estimating the active space of a signal

By B. Lohr, Timothy F. Wright, Robert J. Dooling. 2003

333 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental Biology, Ecology, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f78a445ede522936c0040390ae91cbcb5b295771

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental Biology

In Ecology

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

Citations in the corpus

EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE AUDITORY DETECTION PROCESS ON AVIAN POINT COUNTS (2007, background): “Similarly, in a recent laboratory study, Lohr et al. (2003) demonstrated how variations in signal bandwidth, frequency modulation, and amplitude modulation produced signal masking that affected the ability of Budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus), Zebra Finches (Taeniopygia guttata), and Canaries…”
The “Cocktail Party Problem”: What Is It? How Can It Be Solved? And Why Should Animal Behaviorists Study It? (2008, background): “Recent experimental evidence from frogs suggests that anthropogenic noise can inhibit calling by males (Sun & Narins, 2005) and mask the perception of signals by females (Bee & Swanson, in press; see Lohr et al., 2003, for related work in birds).”
Sources of background noise and their influence on vertebrate acoustic communication (2013, background): “An increase in the SNR is especially important when signals share the same frequency range (Bremond, 1978; Lohr et al., 2003).”
Animals can vary signal amplitude with receiver distance: evidence from zebra finch song (2006, background): “Several studies, for instance, have estimated the communication distance of vocal signals in birds and mammals (e.g. Brenowitz 1982; Brown 1989; Janik 2000; Lohr et al. 2003).”
AVIAN COMMUNICATION IN URBAN NOISE: CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF VOCAL ADJUSTMENT (2006, background): “Laboratory psychoacoustic studies have shown that sounds with a greater bandwidth and higher rate of frequency modulation are more diffi cult to detect from noise (Lohr et al. 2003).”
Does ambient noise affect growth and begging call structure in nestling birds (2008, background): “A narrow frequency range would concentrate more signal energy in the adjusted frequency band and improve the signal to noise ratio in that band (Lohr et al. 2003).”
Comparative effects of urban development and anthropogenic noise on bird songs (2012, background): “…noise disrupts the transmission of lowfrequency signal components by masking that region, which changes the frequency range that the receiver hears and interferes with the receiver’s ability to hear the signal’s original content (Lohr et al. 2003; Brumm and Slabbekoorn 2005; Halfwerk et al. 2011).”
Research, part of a Special Feature on Effects of Roads and Traffic on Wildlife Populations and Landscape Function Impacts of Traffic Noise and Traffic Volume on Birds of Roadside Habitats (2009, background): “Traffic noise masked the contact calls of the budgerigar, canary, and Zebra Finch, each with a dominant frequency around 3000 Hz during a controlled laboratory experiment (Lohr et al. 2003).”
SONG SPARROW (MELOSPIZA MELODIA) SONG VARIES WITH URBAN NOISE (2006, background): “Noise that masks songs may also favor modulation of amplitude, frequency, rhythm, timbre, and call bandwidth (Lohr et al. 2003).”
Phenotypic plasticity affects the response of a sexually selected trait to anthropogenic noise (2013, background): “Although the narrowing of bandwidth increases detectability against the background noise (Lohr et al. 2003; Pohl et al. 2009), singing at higher frequencies could preclude the singing of complex songs (cf: Podos 1997; Gil and Gahr 2002; Cardoso 2012).”
Acoustic communication in a noisy world: can fish compete with anthropogenic noise? (2014, background): “Laboratory studies have shown that sounds with a greater bandwidth and a higher rate of frequency modulation are harder to detect from noise (Lohr et al. 2003), and animals in habitats with high levels of natural noise converge on vocalizations with primarily pure tones (e.”