Development of the acoustically evoked behavioral response in zebrafish to pure tones
1 Parmly Hearing Institute, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago,
Illinois, USA
2 Department of Psychology, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago,
Illinois
Author for correspondence (e-mail:
rfay{at}luc.edu)
Accepted 15 February 2005
![]() |
Summary |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key words: otolith organs, hearing, swimbladder, Weberian ossicles, escape response, Danio rerio, zebrafish
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
With regard to hearing ability, fish are often categorized either as
`hearing generalists' or `hearing specialists' with the distinction being that
hearing specialists have morphological adaptations that aid in the detection
of sound pressure (Popper and Fay,
1998). The ear of the hearing generalist is thought to function as
an accelerometer responding directly to the particle motion of the sound field
(de Vries, 1950
;
Fay and Olsho, 1979
), whereas
the specialist ear receives acoustic energy that has been re-radiated from the
swimbladder or a nearby bubble (von
Frisch, 1938
). Because the gas in the swimbladder (or other
bubble) is compressible the volume changes with sound pressure and the energy
radiated to the ear is proportional to pressure.
Zebrafish, like goldfish, are otophysan hearing specialists that have
specialized bones known as Weberian ossicles that mechanically connect the
swimbladder to the sacculi (the end organs involved in hearing). The inner ear
anatomy of zebrafish is also similar to goldfish
(Platt, 1993), and leads to
the expectation that zebrafish will have similar hearing capabilities as
goldfish. Recent evidence is consistent with this view. Higgs et al.
(2002
) measured the auditory
brainstem response (ABR) of juvenile (the smallest fish were 25 mm) and adult
zebrafish, and adult goldfish. They found that zebrafish had thresholds
similar to goldfish, the same bandwidth (hearing range; 1004000 Hz),
and the same best frequency (800 Hz). Higgs et al.
(2002
) also showed that
despite the fact that hair cells are continuously being added to the sensory
epithelium during growth, there was no change in threshold, bandwidth, or best
frequency during this developmental period for zebrafish. In another study on
smaller zebrafish, however, Higgs et al.
(2003
) found that the highest
frequency at which an ABR measurement could be obtained increased linearly as
the fish developed from 1013 mm (200 Hz) to >25 mm(4000 Hz), a
development pattern they correlated with the development of the Weberian
ossicles. Other studies on other species of fish have also found changes in
auditory sensitivity in developing fish (Atlantic herring: Clupea
harengus, Blaxter and Hoss,
1981
; Damselfishes: Pomacentridae,
Kenyon, 1996
; Croaking
gonrami: Trichopsis vittata,
Wysocki and Ladich, 2001
).
It is known that larval zebrafish perform a startle response in reaction to
sudden acoustic stimuli at an early stage when the fish begin free swimming
(typically 5 days post fertilization, dpf) and they are approximately 3.5 mm
inlength (e.g. Kimmel et al.,
1974). A swimming response, indistinguishable from the startle
response, can be evoked by touch at an earlier age (2 dpf) indicating that the
appearance of the acoustic startle response is probably not limited by motor
development (Kimmel et al.,
1974
). The appearance of the acoustic startle response does
coincide with the development of morphological specializations for hearing,
including calcification of the otoliths and inflation of the swimbladder
(Eaton and DiDomenico, 1986
).
The characteristics of the acoustic stimuli to which larval zebrafish are
responsive, however, have not been studied quantitatively. Here we use
acoustically evoked behavioral responses (AEBRs) to follow the development of
sound sensitivity by determining the levels and frequencies to which larval
and adult zebrafish respond.
![]() |
Materials and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Experimental apparatus
Controlled vibratory stimuli were delivered to a platform made of qtr inch
thick translucent plastic by a vertically oriented Bruel & Kjaer Type 4810
shaker (Fig. 1). Fish were
placed in 12 mm diameter wells (standard 24-well polystyrene tissue-culture
dishes; Costar/Corning, Corning, NY, USA), that were secured to the plastic
platform with clips and screws. Eight larval fish were used in an experiment,
with one fish placed in each of the central eight wells. A Tucker-Davis
Technologies (TDT Inc, Gainesville, FL, USA) System 3 was used to control the
shaker and also to monitor platform movement through an accelerometer. The TDT
System 3 was used to generate single-tone stimuli that were then amplified by
a Crown D-75A power amplifier. To attenuate amplifier noise and match
impedance with the Bruel & Kjaer shaker, the output of the amplifier was
connected to a circuit in which a 25 power resistor was placed in
parallel with the series combination of a 4
power resistor and the
shaker.
|
A custom-designed graphical user interface (GUI) was created in Matlab v6 (Mathworks) to control the TDT System 3 via Active-X. Video sequences during the experiments were digitally captured in the Matlab GUI from the output of a Panasonic wv-BP330 black and white video camera connected to a Videum VO video-capture board (Winnov LP, Sunnyvale, CA). Active-X software was used to control the video-capture board from Matlab (ActiVideo, Inc, Laguna Hills, CA, USA).
Stimuli
Stimuli consisted of sinusoids of 120 ms duration with 20 ms cosine squared
rise-fall times. The stimulus frequencies were 100, 150, 200, 300, 400, 600,
800 and 1200 Hz. Because greater current is required at higher frequencies to
produce a given displacement, 1200 Hz was the highest frequency that we could
test using the shaker.
Acceleration
In order to determine the acceleration of the water in the wells,
long-duration stimuli (>20 s) of the test frequencies were delivered to the
24-well culture dish mounted on the platform. The central 8 wells of the
culture dish were completely filled with water and then 2 ml were removed from
each one to attain a standard water volume. The RMS output of the
accelerometer was measured using an HP 3581A wave analyzer.
Fig. 2A shows that, as
expected, doubling the stimulus level doubles the acceleration (i.e. the
slopes of the curves are 6 dB per stimulus level doubling). Although the
acceleration amplitude is a linear function of the voltage to the shaker, the
acceleration amplitude is not constant with respect to frequency. This is
illustrated in Fig. 2B where
there is 6 dB between the lines but the lines are not flat as a function of
frequency.
|
Sound pressure level
The wells in which the larval fish were placed are too small for
commercially available hydrophones, so to measure the sound pressure level
inside the wells, a small probe tube was constructed by carefully gluing
cellophane to the end of a 1 mm diameter, 30 mm-long stainless-steel tube to
form a drum. The stainless-steel probe tube was coupled to a Bruel & Kjaer
(B&K) Precision Sound Level Meter (type 2235) using a 10 mm flexible tube
(the gap between the probe tube and the microphone tube was 1 mm). The
probe was then placed near a calibrated Bruel & Kjaer 8103 hydrophone in
various places within a larger water tank (2 l).
Fig. 3 shows the output of the
8103 hydrophone and our probe at different frequencies. The difference between
the hydrophone and the probe is about 40 dB across the frequencies tested
(Fig. 3, Probe attenuation),
and was used to calibrate the probe tube system for use underwater.
|
The probe was rigidly affixed near the center of one of the wells in the culture dish such that the probe moved with the dish when the stimuli were presented. Having the probe move with the wells measures the sound pressure that the fish would experience and prevents the artifactual measurement of sound pressure due to the probe changing depth with vertical vibration. The tip of the probe was 3 mm from the bottom of the well.
Sound pressure was measured at each frequency and level (Fig. 4). To test repeatability, the sound pressure levels at all levels and frequencies were measured in three separate trials. In between each of the trials, the culture dish was removed from the platform, emptied, the 8 center wells were completely filled with water, and then 2 ml were removed to obtain the standard amount of water in each well. The growth of sound pressure was 6 dB per doubling of the voltage to the shaker at all frequencies and little difference was evident among the three trials. We then tested whether the depth of water in the well affected the measured sound pressure levels. The well with the probe was first completely filled, then 1, 1.5 and 2 ml were removed, and finally the well was emptied. (The other 7 wells were kept with the standard amount of water, i.e. filled less 2 ml, so that the overall mass would not change much.) It was found that changing the depth of the water did not change the measured sound pressure level, even when the well contained no water. It is inferred that due to flexing of the well walls and water surface, the speed of sound in these small wells is close to that in air and as a consequence the apparent acoustic impedance of water in the wells is close to that of air.
|
Samples of the stimuli at the highest levels used in the experiments were
recorded. Fig. 5 shows the time
waveform of the stimuli (right insets), an example of two periods from the
stimuli (from 60 ms, left inserts), and the Fast-Fourier transform (FFT)
of the stimuli for 100, 600, and 1200 Hz. The stimuli contain little harmonic
distortion. The most distorted waveform occurs at 600 Hz where the first
harmonic (1200 Hz) is 36 dB attenuated relative to the fundamental (600 Hz).
In all other stimuli the first harmonic is attenuated at least 40 dB relative
to the fundamental. Subharmonics are attenuated by about 80 dB for all the
frequencies tested.
|
To accommodate adult fish, some experiments used a larger, single well (120x80x40 mm) in which three adult fish were placed during an experiment. The mass of the filled large well was greater than the 24 small wells (eight filled), which exaggerates mechanical resonance, and the acoustics in the large well were also less well behaved than in the small wells. Sound pressure varied to some extent at different locations and with water column depth. The sound pressure used to plot results from the large well were measured in the center of the well at a depth of 15 mm from the bottom.
Data collection and analysis
Each data set consisted of 56 trials (eight frequencies and seven levels
see above). The 56 trials were randomized and each one presented once
at intervals of 105 ± up to 30 s. Two data sets were completed during
an experiment (except for a few cases with deflated swimbladders). Five
seconds of video were recorded during each trial at 25 frames per second (40
ms per frame, 480x360 pixels). The tone began 2.4 s after the video
recording was started; i.e. starting at the 60th frame and lasting until the
end of the 62nd frame.
Larval zebrafish are able to initiate a startle response (also called
`escape response') in about 10 ms following the onset of intense acoustic
stimuli (Kimmel et al., 1974;
Kimmel et al., 1980
;
Eaton et al., 1981
). Rapid
responses to intense stimuli have been shown to involve Mauthner cell
activation (for a review of the Mauthner cell's involvement in escape behavior
see Eaton et al., 2001
).
However, lower intensity acoustic stimuli evoke less vigorous escape behaviors
with increased latency (Kimmel et al.,
1974
, Eaton and Kimmel,
1980
), and larval zebrafish perform similar escape behaviors with
increased latencies when the Mauthner cells are absent
(Kimmel et al., 1974
;
Kimmel et al., 1980
). Because
we used long, gated stimuli in order to limit spectral content and because the
video frame rate was too low, it was not possible for us to differentiate
between Mauthner-mediated responses and other types of movement by the fish.
Our primary interest was in determining if fish would respond to the sounds,
regardless of whether or not the responses were Mauthner-mediated. Therefore,
we defined any distinguishable movement associated with the stimulus as a
response.
To determine whether the fish responded to a stimulus, a statistical description of their movement was used. A frame-by-frame subtraction in which the first frame was subtracted from the second, then the second from the third, and so on, was performed on the 5 s of video for all 56 trials in a data set. With no movement (or without fish in the wells) there was little difference in individual pixel intensity on successive frames (Fig. 6A). The noise that was present, the differences in pixel intensity when no movement occurred, was consistent and small compared with pixel intensity changes caused by movement of the fish. For example, areas with no movement in Fig. 6AC are light colored and consistent, whereas in areas where there is fish movement in Fig. 6B,C there are dark areas of large changes in pixel intensity. A threshold value above the noise was set (the same for all experiments) such that any change in pixel intensity above this threshold could be used to define movement by the fish.
|
The acoustic stimulus was presented 2.4 s into the 5 s video recording of each trial. The first 2.4 s of each trial therefore represent the free-swimming behavior of the fish in quiet. The number of pixels with intensity changes above threshold in a moving window of three consecutive frames were collected for the first 2.32 s of all 56 trials in a data set. A histogram was then constructed of the frequency of occurrence for the number of pixels above threshold (amount of fish movement) for the fish in quiet. The histogram was fit with a single exponential equation (decreasing from a maximum at zero). An exponential distribution is expected if the eight fish act as infrequently-moving, individual particles. With the probability density function in place for the fish in quiet, the number of pixels above threshold during the stimulus can be compared. A positive response to the stimulus was recorded when the number of pixels that changed during the stimulus would occur by chance less than 1 in 10,000 times (P<0.0001) for the distribution of the fish in quiet for that data set. Fig. 7 shows an example of a histogram and the fitted exponential equation for a data set of the fish in quiet. For this data set, a positive response to a stimulus would be registered if more than 91 pixels were above threshold (Fig. 7, arrowhead). This is a very conservative criterion, but gives results that seem to match well with visual impressions. Visual inspection of the video recordings produced almost identical results as the statistical analysis in a blind scoring of trials in initial experiments (C. Buck, P. Sigafus and D. G. Zeddies, personal observations).
|
Adult fish were more active than larvae, and the adults' movement in quiet
was not well fit by an exponential equation. The responses were distinct so,
as in other studies (e.g. Kimmel et al.,
1974), the video records were scored by visual inspection for fish
in the large well.
Choosing the cosine-squared rise and fall time for stimuli
Zebrafish will respond rapidly to short acoustic bursts, but such short
signals are intrinsically broadband with energy at frequencies other than the
nominal sinusoidal frequency. Therefore, to limit the spectral content, we
chose relatively long (120 ms), cosine-squared gated stimuli. However, because
these fish perform escape response with latencies of 10 ms
(Kimmel et al., 1974
), it is
not clear when we would expect the fish to respond to 120 ms stimuli that are
gradually gated. To assess whether gating time affects response thresholds, we
determined the thresholds, using the analysis described above, for rise and
fall times of 2.5, 5, 10, 20, 40 ms (randomized presentation of rise-fall
times and levels). No clear trend was found
(Fig. 8), so a rise-fall time
of 20 ms was arbitrarily chosen as the standard because we knew that the 20 ms
rise-fall produced clean stimuli in our mechanical system (see above).
|
Choosing intervals for stimulus presentation
To maximize the number of presentations that can be presented during an
experiment the interval between presentations must be minimized. Too frequent
presentation could cause the fish to habituate to the stimuli, so we tested
whether the response threshold changed when stimuli were presented at
different intervals. Seventy five consecutive presentations of a 400 Hz tone
were presented at 3 minintervals at a level that was previously determined to
be just above threshold. A positive response was obtained for each of these
presentations. Knowing that an AEBR could be induced every 3 min, trials were
created to test whether a recently performed response would affect the
probability of the subsequent responses. A trial consisted of an initial AEBR
induced by the suprathreshold 400 Hz tone followed by a test tone of a
randomly selected level and an interval of 60, 90 or 150 s. Each new trial was
presented 3 min after the conclusion of the previous trial. A total of 30
trials were presented during an experiment. The threshold for response was
determined to be the same for the intervals tested (data not shown). A
standard interval of 105 s with a random variation of ± up to 30 s was
selected.
Deflating the swimbladder
Adult and larval fish were anesthetized using a 5000:1 dilution of MS-222
(ethyl m-aminobenzoate). When the fish became unresponsive they were
placed on a translucent panel and viewed through a dissecting scope that was
illuminated from below to make the swimbladder visible. We deflated the
anterior, posterior, or both chambers of the swimbladder in adult zebrafish
using an M1 needle syringe to draw out the gas. In larvae, a combination of a
sharp glass pipette and the M1 needle was used to deflate the swimbladder.
After experiments, adult fish were dissected to evaluate the status of the
swimbladder. When both chambers were deflated then no gas-filled bladder was
seen upon dissection; indicating that the chambers did not refill during the
experiment. When only the anterior or posterior chamber was deflated then both
chambers of the swimbladder were easily identified during dissection;
suggesting that the remaining chamber could, at least in part, refill the
deflated chamber. Images of the larval fish were taken before and after
experiments. After the experiment, the swimbladder could not be seen
indicating that, as in adults, the swimbladder does not reinflate during the
course of an experiment.
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
To test the responses of adult fish, a larger container was used (it should be noted that the acoustics inside the large well were not as well behaved as in the smaller wells, see Materials and methods). Fig. 10 shows the response thresholds of adult fish, 8 months of age, and the response thresholds of 13 dpf larval fish also tested in the large single well. (Three adult fish were tested together, and eight larval fish in their respective experiments.) The thresholds and bandwidth for the adult and larval fish were approximately the same.
|
The swimbladder
At 4 dpf the fish were not responsive to our acoustic stimuli. However, 5
dpf and older fish did respond and the thresholds and bandwidth for the
responses did not appear to change with age. It is widely recognized that the
general behavior of 5 dpf zebrafish is different from 4 dpf zebrafish. At 4
dpf the fish are mostly sessile (inactive and lying on the bottom or sides of
the container) whereas 5 dpf fish are free swimming and active. The
swimbladder also inflates at 5 dpf (Fig.
11). In adult goldfish, postsynaptic potentials in the Mauthner
cell can all but be eliminated by deflating the swimbladder
(Canfield and Eaton, 1990).
And, there is evidence that the swimbladder may be required for the startle
response in adult zebrafish. In a screen of mutagenized zebrafish, virtually
all fish that failed to perform a startle response to a loud 400 Hz tone had
evident morphological defects in the conductive pathway including the
swimbladder and Weberian ossicles (Bang et
al., 2002
).
|
Deflating both chambers of the swimbladder in adult fish essentially eliminated the AEBR. Only two positive responses were registered in four separate experiments (2 positive responses in 280 trials; data not shown). Fig. 12, however, shows that larval fish with deflated swimbladders still responded near the mean thresholds determined for larval fish with intact swimbladders (all of these experiments on larval fish were conducted in the small wells and analyzed as described in Materials and methods). Adult fish continued to respond to the stimuli when only the anterior or posterior swimbladder was deflated (data not shown). We had expected that deflating the anterior chamber would be sufficient to elevate the thresholds because the anterior chamber is directly connected to the sacculi via the Weberian ossicles. Our presumption is that the intact posterior chamber was able to re-inflate the anterior chamber.
|
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The response was probably mediated by the sacculus
We found that these fish responded to frequencies up to 1200 Hz (the
highest that we could test). Although there is some energy at harmonic
frequencies (40 dB down from the fundamental) there is very little energy
at sub-harmonic frequencies (
80 dB down from the fundamental). Therefore,
it is unlikely that these fish could have been responding to a low-frequency
component of the high-frequency stimulus. This suggests that the response is
mediated through the saccular pathway because it is the only otolithic end
organ shown to respond at these relatively high frequencies in otophysan
fishes (Fay, 1981
). It is also
consistent with the finding of Bang et al.
(2002
) that most mutations
affecting the startle response (to a 400 Hz tone) had morphological defects in
the saccular transmission pathway, and with studies showing that deflation of
the swimbladder (the input to the sacculi) in goldfish makes the startle
response less likely (e.g., Canfield and
Eaton, 1990
).
Although it is possible that the AEBR is mediated through the lateral line system at the low frequencies, it is unlikely in these experiments because the stimuli would poorly activate the lateral line. In these experiments the fish were accelerated vertically with the water, thus little or no movement of the water relative to the fish is expected. Pressure differences across the fish are also not expected. The vertical displacement creates sound pressure in the wells, but because the wavelength is much greater than the dimensions of the wells the fish could not experience a pressure gradient across different regions of their bodies.
Adult zebrafish responded to sound pressure, but larval zebrafish responded to acceleration
We found that deflating both swimbladder chambers in the adult fish
effectively eliminated the AEBR, but deflating the swimbladder in larval fish
did not affect their thresholds. The elimination of the AEBR with swimbladder
deflation in adults is consistent with previous studies, most notably Canfield
and Eaton (1990). That the
response of the adult zebrafish was affected by swimbladder deflation argues
that they were responding to sound pressure in our experiments. Adult
zebrafish are well equipped to detect sound pressure under water. Otophysan
fishes, such as goldfish and zebrafish, are hearing specialists in which the
swimbladder is coupled to the sacculi via Weberian ossicles. The
swimbladder acts as a pressure transducer because its volume varies in
proportion to pressure i.e. the swimbladder expands and contracts in
the presence of sound pressure because swimbladder gas is compressible
(Rogers and Cox, 1988
). In
adult fish the Weberian ossicles are an efficient mechanical linkage that
connects the swimbladder to the sacculi, giving up to about 40 dB gain in
pressure sensitivity (e.g. Poggendorf,
1952
).
Although the Weberian ossicles had not yet formed in our larval zebrafish
(the first morphological evidence for Weberian oscicle formation occurs at 7
mm; Higgs et al., 2003), it
could still be possible for the swimbladder to provide pressure information to
the sacculi due to the close proximity of the swimbladder to the inner ears of
such small animals (e.g. van Bergeijk,
1967
). Our finding that deflating the swimbladder in larval
zebrafish does not change their thresholds indicates that, unlike the adults,
the larval fish were not responding to sound pressure. Therefore, the larval
fish are probably responding to direct acceleration of the otolith organs in a
manner similar to a hearing generalist fish such as a toadfish
(Fay and Edds-Walton, 1997
).
It is worth noting here that because the scattered acoustic energy of a
spherical bubble is proportional to the sixth power of the bubble's radius
(see e.g. Pierce, 1994
; pp.
428430), small swimbladders in larval fish may not radiate much
energy.
In these experiments the bandwidth and thresholds for larvae and adult were the same
To our surprise, we found that the bandwidth and thresholds of the startle
response in adult and larval (>5 dpf) zebrafish were the same. That the
bandwidths were the same indicates that the necessary apparatus for processing
high frequency information is in place at 5 dpf. In general, otophysan fishes
hear to higher frequencies than non-specialist fishes
(Fay, 1988), and otophysans
are characterized by the presence of Weberian ossicles that mechanically
couple the swimbladder to the sacculi. Disrupting the Weberian ossicle chain,
however, does not necessarily make fish deaf to the high frequencies, it just
raises the sound intensities required to stimulate the ear
(Poggendorf, 1952
;
Ladich and Wysocki, 2003
). The
fish still have inner ear hair cell/auditory nerve `channels' that respond
best at relatively high frequencies (Fay,
1997
). In the larval fish that we tested (<6 mm) the Weberian
ossicles had not yet formed, but it appears that the sacculus already has the
ability to process high-frequency information.
The development of AEBR thresholds are difficult to interpret because adult
and larval fish respond to different components of the acoustic stimulus. When
the Weberian ossicles become functional the input to the sacculus increases
for a given sound level. Thus, it might be expected that the AEBR thresholds
in adult fish would be lower than the thresholds in larvae. In these
experiments, the AEBR thresholds are the same for adult and larval fish,
arguing that the threshold for activation (downstream from the sacculus,
perhaps at the Mauthner cell) is being adjusted; possibly to ensure proper
reactions to biologically relevant stimuli. The adjustment in activation
threshold is consistent with feed-forward inhibition of the Mauthner-cell
circuitry underlying escape responses in goldfish (for review see
Faber et al., 1989) that can
be potentiated by sound stimuli (Oda et
al., 1998
).
Canfield and Rose (1996)
reported that largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) feeding on
guppies produce
170 dB (re 1 µPa,
200 Hz), and in the same paper
used
150 dB (re 1 µPa,
500 Hz) to elicit escape responses from
goldfish. From our measurements, both adult and larval zebrafish would respond
to the bass strike and the
150 dB (re 1 µPa,
500 Hz) used to
elicit responses from goldfish. One has to imagine though, that what is
dangerous to a larval fish and warrants reaction may not be dangerous to an
adult fish. In these experiments it may be coincidental that the response
thresholds are the same in adult and larvae (although it does mean that the
sacculus is receiving greater input for a given acoustic stimulus at threshold
in adult fish). With larval fish responsive to particle motion (the so-called
`near field component' that decays rapidly with distance) and adult fish
responsive to pressure (that can propagate over long distances in the far
field) the thresholds measured in SPL could be different if the animals were
tested further from the sound source.
While it is possible to conclude from the frequency bandwidth that the
otolithic organ adaptations for high-frequency hearing are already present in
larval fish, we do not know if the absolute hearing sensitivity was still
developing. We do not know, for example, if the sensitivity of the hair cells
and tuned primary afferents of the sacculus are different in larval and adult
fish. In adult fish the AEBR threshold is 60 dB greater than the ABR
threshold (Higgs et al.,
2002
), indicating that there is at least a 60 dB range within
which the fish can hear but do not startle. Since we do not have comparable
ABR data for larval fish (<10 mm), we cannot exclude the possibility that
they only detect (hear) intense sounds and that any detectable sound induces
an AEBR.
![]() |
Acknowledgments |
---|
![]() |
Footnotes |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Bang, P. I., Yelick, P. C., Malicki, J. J. and Sewell, W. F. (2002). High-throughput behavioral screening method for detecting auditory response defects in zebrafish. J. Neurosci. Meth. 118,177 -187.[CrossRef][Medline]
Blaxter, J. H. S. and Hoss, D. E. (1981). Startle response in Herring: The effect of sound stimulus frequency, size of fish and selective interference with the acoustico-lateralis system. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 61,871 -879.
Canfield, J. G. and Eaton, R. C. (1990). Swimbladder acoustic pressure transduction initiates Mauthner-mediated escape. Nature 347,760 -762.[CrossRef]
Canfield, J. G. and Rose, G. J. (1996). Hierarchical sensory guidance of mauthner-mediated escape responses in goldfish (Carassius aurautus) and Cichlids (Haplochromis burtoni). Brain Behav. Evol. 48,137 -156.[Medline]
de Vries, H. L. (1950). The mechanics of the labyrinth otoliths. Acta Otolaryngol. 38,262 -273.
Eaton, R. C. and DiDomenico, R. (1986). The role of the teleost escape response during development. Trans. Am. Fish Soc. 115,128 -142.
Eaton, R. C. and Kimmel, C. B. (1980). Directional sensitivity of the Mauthner cell system to vibrational stimulation in zebrafish larvae. J. Comp. Physiol. A 140,337 -342.
Eaton, R. C., Lavender, W. A. and Wieland, C. M. (1981). Identification of Mauthner-initiated response patterns in goldfish: Evidence from simultaneous cinematography and electrophysiology. J. Comp. Physiol. A 144,521 -531.
Eaton, R. C., Lee, R. K. K. and Foreman, M. B. (2001). The Mauthner cell and other identified neurons of the brainstem escape network of fish. Prog. Neurobiol. 63,467 -485.[CrossRef][Medline]
Faber, D. S., Fetcho, J. R., and Korn, H. (1989). Neuronal networks underlying the escape response in goldfish: General implications for motor control. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 563,11 -33.[Medline]
Fay, R. R. (1981). Coding of acoustic information in the eighth nerve. In Hearing and Sound Communication in Fishes (ed. W. N. Tavolga, A. N. Popper and R. R. Fay), pp.189 -219. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Fay, R. R. (1988). Hearing in Vertebrates: A Psychophysics Databook. Winnetka, IL: Hill-Fay Associates.
Fay, R. R. (1997). Frequency selectivity of saccular afferents of the goldfish revealed by revcor analysis. In Diversity in Auditory Mechanics (ed. E. R. Lewis, G. R. Long, R. F. Lyon, P. M. Narins, C. R. Steele and E. Hecht-Poinar), pp.69 -75. Singapore: World Scientific Publishers.
Fay, R. R. and Edds-Walton, P. L (1997). Directional response properties of saccular afferents of the toadfish, Opsanus tau. Hear. Res. 111,1 -21.[CrossRef][Medline]
Fay, R. R. and Olsho, L. W. (1979). Discharge patterns of lagenar and saccular nerve fibers of the goldfish (Carassius auratus): psychophysical tuning curves. J. Exp. Biol. 74,83 -100.
Fay, R. R. and Simmons, A. M. (1998). The sense of hearing in fish and amphibians. In Comparative Hearing: Fish and Amphibians (ed. R. R. Fay and A. N. Popper), pp.269 -318. Springer, New York.
Higgs, D. M., Rollo, A. K., Souza, M. J. and Popper, A. N. (2003). Development of form and function in peripheral auditory structures of the zebrafish (Danio rerio). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113,1145 -1154.[CrossRef][Medline]
Higgs, D. M., Souza, M. J., Wilkins, H. R., Presson, J. C. and Popper, A. N. (2002). Age- and size-related changes in the inner ear and hearing ability of the adult zebrafish (Danio rerio). J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 3, 174-184.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kenyon, T. N. (1996). Ontogenic changes in the auditory sensitivity of damesefishes (pomacentridae). J. Comp. Physiol. A 179,553 -561.
Kimmel, C. B., Eaton, R. C. and Powell, S. L. (1980). Decreased fast-start performance of zebrafish larvae lacking Mauthner neurons. J. Comp. Physiol. A 140,343 -350.
Kimmel, C. B., Patterson, J. and Kimmel, R. O. (1974). The development and behavioral characteristics of the startle response in zebra fish. Dev. Pyschobiol. 7, 47-60.[CrossRef]
Ladich, F. and Wysocki, L. E. (2003). How does tripus extirpation affect auditory sensitivity in goldfish? Hear. Res. 182,119 -129.[CrossRef][Medline]
Nüsslein-Volhard, C., Gilmour, D. T. and Dahm, R. (2002). Introduction: zebrafish as a system to study development and organogenesis. In Zebrafish (ed. C. Nüsslein-Volhard and R. Dahm), New York: Oxford University Press.
Oda, Y., Kawasaki, K., Morita, M., Korn, H. and Matsui, H. (1998). Inhibitory long-term potentiation underlies auditory conditioning of goldfish escape behaviour. Nature 394,182 -185.[CrossRef][Medline]
Pierce, A. D. (1994). Acoustics: An Introduction to its Physical Principles and Applications. New York: Acoustical Society of America.
Platt, C. (1993). Zebrafish inner ear sensory surfaces are similar to those in goldfish. Hear Res. 65,133 -140.[CrossRef][Medline]
Poggendorf, D. (1952). Die absolute Hörschwelle des Zwergwelses (Amiurus nebulosus) und Beiträge zur Physik des Weberschen Apparates der Ostariophysen. Z vergl. Physiol. 34,222 -257.[CrossRef]
Popper, A. N. and Fay, R. R. (1998). The Auditory Periphery in Fishes. In Comparative Hearing: Fish and Amphibians (ed. R. R. Fay and A. N. Popper), pp.43 -100. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Rogers, P. H. and Cox, M. (1988). Underwater sound as a biological stimulus. In Sensory Biology of Aquatic Animals (ed. J. Atema, R. R. Fay, A. N. Popper and W. N. Tavolga), pp. 131-149. New York: Springer-Verlag.
van Bergeijk, W. A. (1967). The evolution of vertebrate hearing. In Contributions to Sensory Physiology, vol. 1 (ed. W. D. Neff), pp.1 -50. New York: Academic Press.
von Frisch, K. (1938). Über die Bedeutung des Scculus und der Lagena fár den Gehorsinn der Fische. Z. Vergl. Physiol. 25,703 -747.[CrossRef]
Westerfield, M. (1994). The Zebrafish Book: A Guide for the Laboratory use of Zebrafish (Danio rerio). University of Oregon Press.
Wysocki, L. E. and Ladich, F. (2001). The ontogenetic development of auditory sensitivity, vocalization and acoustic communication in the labyrinth fish Trichopsis vittata. J. Comp. Physiol. A 186,435 -445.