Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America logoLink to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
. 1981 Mar;78(3):1943–1947. doi: 10.1073/pnas.78.3.1943

Auditory brainstem response in dolphins.

S H Ridgway, T H Bullock, D A Carder, R L Seeley, D Woods, R Galambos
PMCID: PMC319252  PMID: 6940199

Abstract

We recorded the auditory brainstem response (ABR) in four dolphins (Tursiops truncatus and Delphinus delphis). The ABR evoked by clicks consists of seven waves within 10 msec; two waves often contain dual peaks. The main waves can be identified with those of humans and laboratory mammals; in spite of a much longer path, the latencies of the peaks are almost identical to those of the rat. The dolphin ABR waves increase in latency as the intensity of a sound decreases by only 4 microseconds/decibel(dB) (for clicks with peak power at 66 kHz) compared to 40 microseconds/dB in humans (for clicks in the sonic range). Low-frequency clicks (6-kHz peak power) show a latency increase about 3 times (12 microseconds/dB) as great. Although the dolphin brainstem tracks individual clicks to at least 600 per sec, the latency increases and amplitude decreases with increasing click rates. This effect varies among different waves of the ABR; it is around one-fifth the effect seen in man. The dolphin brain is specialized for handling brief, frequent clicks. A small latency difference is seen between clicks 180 degrees different in phase--i.e., with initial compression vs. initial rarefaction. The ABR can be used to test theories of dolphin sonar signal processing. Hearing thresholds can be evaluated rapidly. Cetaceans that have not been investigated can now be examined, including the great whales, a group for which data are now completely lacking.

Full text

PDF
1943

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Allen A. R., Starr A. Auditory brain stem potentials in monkey (M. mulatta) and man. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1978 Jul;45(1):53–63. doi: 10.1016/0013-4694(78)90341-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bullock T. H., Gurevich V. S. Soviet literature on the nervous system and psychobiology of Cetacea. Int Rev Neurobiol. 1979;21:47–127. doi: 10.1016/s0074-7742(08)60637-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bullock T. H., Ridgway S. H. Evoked potentials in the central auditory system of alert porpoises to their own and artificial sounds. J Neurobiol. 1972;3(1):79–99. doi: 10.1002/neu.480030107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Coats A. C., Martin J. L. Human auditory nerve action potentials and brain stem evoked responses: effects of audiogram shape and lesion location. Arch Otolaryngol. 1977 Oct;103(10):605–622. doi: 10.1001/archotol.1977.00780270073012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Don M., Allen A. R., Starr A. Effect of click rate on the latency of auditory brain stem responses in humans. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1977 Mar-Apr;86(2 Pt 1):186–195. doi: 10.1177/000348947708600209. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. GRINNELL A. D. The neurophysiology of audition in bats: intensity and frequency parameters. J Physiol. 1963 Jun;167:38–66. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1963.sp007132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Huang C. M., Buchwald J. S. Factors that affect the amplitudes and latencies of the vertex short latency acoustic responses in the cat. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1978 Feb;44(2):179–186. doi: 10.1016/0013-4694(78)90264-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Jewett D. L., Williston J. S. Auditory-evoked far fields averaged from the scalp of humans. Brain. 1971;94(4):681–696. doi: 10.1093/brain/94.4.681. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Ridgway S. H. Cerebral and cerebellar involvement of trematode parasites in dolphins and their possible role in stranding. J Wildl Dis. 1972 Jan;8(1):33–43. doi: 10.7589/0090-3558-8.1.33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Suga N. Echo-location and evoked potentials of bats after ablation of inferior colliculus. J Physiol. 1969 Aug;203(3):707–728. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1969.sp008888. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Suga N. Echo-ranging neurons in the inferior colliculus of bats. Science. 1970 Oct 23;170(3956):449–452. doi: 10.1126/science.170.3956.449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Sukhoruchenko M. N. Razlichenie chastoty u del'finov. Fiziol Zh SSSR Im I M Sechenova. 1973 Aug;59(8):1205–1210. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. ZVORYKIN V. P. MORFOLOGICHESKIE OSNOVY UL'TRAZVUKOVYKH I LOKATSIONNYKH SVO ISTV DEL'FINA. Arkh Anat Gistol Embriol. 1963 Jul;45:3–17. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Zvorykin V. P. Kolichestvennaia i tsitoarkhitektonicheskaia kharakteristika sistem stvolovykh slukhovykh i zritel'nykh formatsii letuchei myshi, del'fina, a takzhe cheloveka i biologicheskaia znachimost' analizatorov. Arkh Anat Gistol Embriol. 1971 Apr;60(4):50–62. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America are provided here courtesy of National Academy of Sciences

RESOURCES