MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100020513 · doi:10.3161/150811011x578714

Variation in the use of Harmonics in the Calls of Laryngeally Echolocating Bats

2011· article· en· W2100020513 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Brock Fenton, Mark D. Skowronski, Liam P. McGuire, Paul A. Faure

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Chiropterologica · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcMaster UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsHuman echolocationAcousticsEptesicus fuscusMicrophoneHarmonicsBioacousticsEnergy (signal processing)Sound pressurePhysicsBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The echolocation calls of bats may contain a single acoustic element (the fundamental frequency or a harmonic) or multiple acoustic elements that may (or may not) include the fundamental element. We hypothesize that the detection of harmonics is affected by three factors: 1) species, 2) situation, and 3) recording quality. To test our hypotheses, we recorded and analyzed approximately 2,300 calls from 17 species and 1 subspecies in 6 families of bats using a 1-channel and 4-channel microphone array. The percentage of calls with multiple acoustic elements varied from 0 to 83% across species. Furthermore, recordings from a 4-channel microphone array (1 m tetrahedron arrangement) revealed that the percent of calls with multiple acoustic elements varied across channels by up to 50%, indicating the effect of bat position relative to the microphone. In some species, presence of multiple acoustic elements was predicted by call energy: calls with sufficient energy (threshold varied by species) had multiple acoustic elements above the noise floor of the recording system. In the remaining species that produced calls with multiple acoustic elements, we found two clusters of calls. In one cluster, the presence of multiple acoustic elements was predicted by received call energy. In the 2nd cluster, call energy was lower, and almost all calls included multiple acoustic elements. The detection of harmonics independent of recorded energy suggests the intriguing possibility that harmonics are used differently in these species. Finally, to test the effect of situation, we recorded the echolocation calls of big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) flying in three settings: an anechoic flight room, during roost emergence, and foraging in an open area. Call energy shifted to lower frequencies and fewer acoustic elements as the recording distance and the volume of the flight environment increased (i.e., as clutter decreased). Comparing flight room with foraging calls revealed that the second harmonic of open air foraging signals decreased by about 30 dB (relative to the fundamental). Overall, our results show that detection of echolocation signals with harmonics varied significantly across species. We also demonstrate that relative harmonic intensity varies according to the flight situation within a species, and when combined with the effects of call directionality and relative position of bat and microphone, these factors influence harmonic detection in echolocation recordings.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.139
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.092 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa ChiropterologicaSame topicBat Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207