English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Auditory feedback from the animal's own voice is essential during bat echolocation: to optimize signal detection, bats continuously adjust various call parameters in response to changing echo signals. Auditory feedback seems also necessary for controlling many bat communication calls, although it remains unclear how auditory feedback control differs in echolocation and communication. We tackled this question by analyzing echolocation and communication in greater horseshoe bats, whose echolocation pulses are dominated by a constant frequency component that matches the frequency range they hear best. To maintain echoes within this “auditory fovea”, horseshoe bats constantly adjust their echolocation call frequency depending on the frequency of the returning echo signal. This Doppler-shift compensation (DSC) behavior represents one of the most precise forms of sensory-motor feedback known. We examined the variability of echolocation pulses emitted at rest (resting frequencies, RFs) and one type of communication signal which resembles an echolocation pulse but is much shorter (short constant frequency communication calls, SCFs) and produced only during social interactions. We found that while RFs varied from day to day, corroborating earlier studies in other constant frequency bats, SCF-frequencies remained unchanged. In addition, RFs overlapped for some bats whereas SCF-frequencies were always distinctly different. This indicates that auditory feedback during echolocation changed with varying RFs but remained constant or may have been absent during emission of SCF calls for communication. This fundamentally different feedback mechanism for echolocation and communication may have enabled these bats to use SCF calls for individual recognition whereas they adjusted RF calls to accommodate the daily shifts of their auditory fovea.

Different Auditory Feedback Control for Echolocation and Communication in Horseshoe Bats