Sound Localization in Loricariid Catfish
Fishs have developed a broad diverseness of interior ears and peripheral constructions easing sound transmittal to the interior ears. The significance of this morphological diverseness in ear construction nevertheless, is widely unknown. Several fish taxa possess functional peripheral constructions, which conduct sound quiver to the interior ears and serve to heighten their hearing sensitiveness. Otophysi for illustration, developed “ in-between ear’-like bonelets ( Weberian bonelets ) ( Frisch, 1938 ) to convey quivers of the swim vesica to the interior ear, working as a tympanic membrane. It has been shown that Weberian bonelets enhance hearing in goldfish 30 dubnium more, depending on frequence ( Ladich and Wysocki 2003 ) .Fishs in the superorder Otophysi are largely freshwater teleosts that include mudcats, knifefishes, Phoxinus phoxinuss, carps, characids, chumps and loaches ( Rosen & A ; Greenwood, 1970 ) .
In the catfish household Loricariidae, the Weberian setup is minimized, since the swim vesica is straight next to each side of their ears ( Aquino and Schaefer, 2002 ) . Loricariid catfishes feature a extremely derived swim vesica morphology characterized by complete division of the vesica into two separate domains that are each surrounded by a megaphone-like bony capsule. These mudcats besides have an unusual pterotic bone, which is next to their bi-lobed swim vesica that has holes in the skull part called fenestrae which besides aid in sound localisation. ( Weitzmann, 2005 ) .
Purpose of the undertaking:
Catfishes reveal a high diverseness in the morphology of the swim vesica and Weberian bonelets. Some possess big odd vesicas whereas others have little, mated, encapsulated vesicas. Catfishs with free vesicas hear significantly better above 1 kilohertzs than those holding encapsulated vesicas ( Lechner and Ladich, 2008 ) . However, small is understood about either the morphological scope of these constructions in the household Loricariidae, or about their acoustical functionality.We hypothesized that holding a bi-lobed swim vesica provides Loricariid mudcats with an improved ability to place sounds. In order to prove this hypothesis, we foremost had to develop a protocol for pulling Otocinclus affinis, a little loricariid mudcat that is found in schools of several thousand approximately 1cm to 3 centimeter in length found chiefly in the Amazon River basin, to a sound beginning.
We did this by utilizing operant conditioning, in which a nutrient wages was paired with a conspecific sound stimulation ( Fay, 1988 ) .Like many mudcats ( Ladich and Fine,2006 ) , we have besides found that O. affinis produces sounds by clittering their thoracic spinal columns to do broad-band chinks ( unpublished information ) . Although these sounds are produced when the fish are handled, the normal behavioural context of these sounds are presently unknown. Hypothesized behavioural contexts are assorted agonistic interactions, wooing, engendering and competitory eating.Following operant conditioning of O.
affinis to a conspecific chink sound, we so set out to see if O. affinis were attracted to a non-conspecific tone. We used a 500-hz tone to prove this, following all the same parametric quantities of the operant conditioning. Once we achieved supra 70 % success rate, we so used a multiple talker array to analyze the ability of O. affinis to place to a sound beginning in a big, circular armored combat vehicle by puting up 4 equal quarter-circles with 1 talker along the wall in the center of each quarter-circle and the release container in the in-between intersecting points of the 4 quarter-circles. By leting the O. affinis to acclimatize in the release container for 5 minute and indiscriminately taking a talker to play the sound through we were able to visually see the O. affinis could place sound.
To farther trial whether the bi-lobed swim vesica had an consequence on the O. affinis we recorded the consequences of the trained O. affinis so we deflated the swim vesicas and subject the chapfallen O. affinis through the same 4 talker trial, and therefore were able to see that the chapfallen O. affinis had trouble in placing sound.
The three intents of the undertaking are summarized below:* Train Otocinclus affinis utilizing operant conditioning to near a conspecific sound beginning.* Test the sharp-sightedness of sound localisation in trained O. affinis.* Examine the importance of the swim vesica in sound localisation.
Subjects & A ; Training
Otocinclus affinis, runing in entire length between 1.5 and 2 centimeter, were kept in a 122 ten 30 centimeter armored combat vehicle with H2O temperature at about 26.5 °C. Two types of experiments were performed- preparation and trial.
During preparation tests ( N=3 ) , nutrient ( algae pellets ) and a sound stimulation were presented at the same time. Two groups of 42-50 fish each were trained to tie in the sound stimulation with nutrient by giving them nutrient and sound stimulations at the same time three times a hebdomad for 6 hebdomads. The naive group ( N=42 ) merely received nutrient during this period. 1 presents the groups of fish, trained and naive used in the experiments of this survey.
Experiments & A ; Video Analysis
One-speaker experiments: For each intervention, groups of fish were moved into an experimental fish tank and were allowed to acclimatize for 1 hebdomad.
Treatments were presented as shown above ( 1 ) . The sound stimulation used in this experiment was a 4-sec recording, played continuously, with a individual conspecific O. affinis chink. Sound was played through a computing machine to an Audiosource power amplifier to a University Sound UW-30 underwater talker ( 2A ) . For each test, fish behaviour was video-recorded for 15 min before, during, and after the sound stimulation. Sample frames of picture images were analyzed every 3 min of each 15 min entering period. At each frame, Numberss of fish were counted in each column of a 15×15 centimeter grid drawn on the dorsum of the fish tank.
The locations of the fish in the fish tank were monitored throughout the class of the experiment utilizing a Sony HandyCam with a fisheye lens in dark vision manner. The fish tank was illuminated by an infrared visible radiation to forestall perturbation of the fish, which are nocturnal.Four-speaker experiments: For each test ( N=26 ) , an single “conditioned” fish was moved into a 1.3 m diameter unit of ammunition armored combat vehicle ( 2B ) and was allowed to acclimatize in a clear plastic cylinder for 5 min.
The cylinder was so lifted, leting the fish swim freely, and the conspecific sound stimulation was so presented for 5 proceedingss. The concluding 5 min was a post-stimulus period, in which no sound was administered. The sound stimulation used was the same as that for the one-speaker experiments ( 3B ) , with sound being emitted by one randomly chosen UW-30 talker of four mounted at 0, 90,180, and 270? along the border of the armored combat vehicle. The locations of the fish in the fish tank were monitored throughout the class of the experiment utilizing a Sony HandyCam with a fisheye lens.
Sample frames of picture images were analyzed for each 5 min entering period, in which Numberss of fish were counted in each quarter-circle of the fish tank.Four-speaker experiments with chapfallen swim vesicas: For each test ( N=9 ) , an single “conditioned” fish was moved into a 1.3 m diameter unit of ammunition armored combat vehicle ( 2B ) and was allowed to acclimatize in a clear plastic cylinder for 5 min. The cylinder was so lifted, leting the fish swim freely, and the conspecific sound stimulation was so presented for 5 min. The concluding 5 min was a post-stimulus period, in which no sound was administered.
Then the “conditioned fish” were taken for swim vesica deflation, and returned to acclimatize in the trial armored combat vehicle. Within 2-3 H, the deflated, conditioned fish ( N=5 ) , were so allowed to acclimatize in a clear plastic cylinder for 5 min. The cylinder was so lifted, leting the fish swim freely, and the conspecific sound stimulation was so presented for 5 min. The concluding 5 min was a post-stimulus period, in which no sound was administered. There were four fish that did non last the deflation procedure. The sound stimulation used was the same as that for the one-speaker experiments ( 3B ) , with sound being emitted by one randomly chosen UW-30 talker of four mounted at 0, 90,180, and 270? along the border of the armored combat vehicle. The locations of the fish in the fish tank were monitored throughout the class of the experiment utilizing a Sony HandyCam with a fisheye lens.
Sample frames of picture images were analyzed for each 5 min entering period, in which Numberss of fish were counted in each quarter-circle of the fish tank.
In 4, we present diagrammatically the consequences of our operant conditioning trial, where following preparation with a paired food/sound stimulation, Otocinclus affinis were significantly attracted ( p & lt ; 0.05 when tested against naive controls ) to the right side of the armored combat vehicle with sound entirely. Although conditioning was done with conspecific chinks, fish were attracted to both conspecific sounds ( 4B ) and a 500 Hz tone ( 4C ) . To look into for the internal cogency of our operant conditioning trial, we observe that the conspecific sound by itself did non significantly pull O. affinis, proposing that the fish were reacting merely to the conditioning to a nutrient stimulation.Testing for sound localisation, ( 5 ) we see that the entire clip that otocinclus spent in each armored combat vehicle quarter-circle was dependent to a map of which talker was breathing the conspecific sound stimulation. At the beginning of each sound localisation test, 19 out of 26 fish ( 73 % ) swam straight to the quarter-circle of the right sound-producing talker foremost.
Fish spent significantly more clip near the sound-producing talker than the other three talkers ( P & lt ; 0.05 ) . This was true for all four talkers. Besides, fishes were attracted to the country of the talker even after the stimulation stopped ( informations non shown ) .Following, swim vesica deflation was performed to prove if the loss of their functioning ability would impact the fishes ‘ ability to place sound.
The X raies in 2C show the deflated swim vesicas that appear opaque on the radiology movie. In 6, we observe the clip spent at the right stimulation talker and the correlativity between control and deflated fish. Of the 24 fish included in this experiment, 14 were used for control out of whom, 100 % went to the right talker ab initio.
Out of the 10 deflated fish included, 0 % went to the right talker ab initio. O. affinis hence, lost their ability to place sound once the swim vesicas were deflated, proposing that this taxa of fish use their swim vesica to assist place sound decently.It is anticipated that future experiments will utilize this conditioning paradigm, to further analyze the sound localisation anatomy in O. affinis. In 7, we see the per centum of O.
affinis that swam foremost to rectify quarter-circles ( with sound bring forthing talkers ) or wrong quarter-circles, as a map of swim vesica deflation and the per centum clip spent in the right quarter-circle as a map of swim vesica deflation. Fishs with chapfallen swim vesicas ne’er ab initio localized to the correct quarter-circle and seldom exhausted clip in that quarter-circle.
Fishs have an amazing diverseness in sound generating and acoustic operation constructions ; this diverseness is non merely found between different orders but is besides expressed in changing magnitude between members of the same order.
Several surveies have tried to by experimentation and genetically clarify the growth ( Coburn, 1998 ) and in peculiar the function of CNS development in the diverseness of the acoustic machinery in fish ( Lechner, Wysocki and Ladich,2010 ) ( Wysocki and Ladich,2001 ) ( Ladich and Popper, 2004 ) .Swim vesicas have long been found to lend as sound bring forthing variety meats in fishes. Sound production is achieved by quickly undertaking musculuss to vibrate the swim vesica and thoracic girdle and by cadaverous elements, which produce sound by stridulation or plucking sinews ( Ladich and Fine 2006 ) .
Swim vesica musculuss of fishes can contract at frequences up to 250 Hz, doing them the fastest musculuss in the carnal land. The little tensor tripodis musculus ( TT ) contractions most likely prevent transmittal of swimbladder quivers to the interior ear via the Weberian bonelets during voice. ( Ladich, 2001 ) . The acknowledgment nevertheless of the function of these musculuss and constructions in sound localisation has non been demonstrated.Acoustic communicating is sought to originate from the coaction of sound bring forthing and acoustic constructions, nevertheless, the grade of correlativity between sound production and hearing in fishes remains unknown. In order to find whether fishes are able to use temporal features of acoustic signals, old experiments have determined clip declaration in otophysines and anabantoids by analysing auditory evoked potencies ( AEPs ) to double-click stimulations with changing chink periods ( Wysocki and Ladich, 2002 ) . Furthermore, temporal acknowledgment of sound was found to hold broad diverseness among members of the Loricariidae ( Aquino and Schaefer 2002 ) .
A localisation mechanism that exploits the amplitude, clip, or phase difference between the ears as employed by earthly craniates is non available to angle because the ears are really near together, the velocity of sound in H2O is more than three times faster than in air, and the close electric resistance lucifer between the fish ‘s organic structure and H2O precludes useable diffracted waies. It is suggested that a quadrupole mechanism ( the multipole hearing theory ) exists that is used by hair cells missing an overlying otolith as in the Loricariidae ( Roger and Zeddies, 2008 ) .In the evidences of this hypothesized mechanism lies the orientation theory, where the centripetal epithelial tissue ( sunspot ) of otolithic terminal variety meats contain groups of hair cells with the same or similar morphological orientation, which are typically oppositely oriented across a dividing line. The utriculus and lagena of most fishes follow a conserved form but the sacculus is more varied ( Popper and Fay 1999 ; Popper et Al.
2003 ; Popper and Schilt, Chapter 2 ) . This mechanism can explicate the directional hearing of fishes, but it can non foster caducous visible radiation on the sound localisation and orientation as the one observed in our experiments.The ability of the auditory system to treat fish ‘s sounds ( Wysocki and Ladich 2005 ) is besides investigated in connexion to the effects of noise in the aquatic environment. These surveies have shown that noise exposure ( white noise of 158 dubniums re 1 lPa for 24 H ) negatively affects the sensing of short transient signals and the temporal declaration ability in fishes. It is true that high-intensity sound can alter the behavior of animate beings, cause terrible harm to inner variety meats and bring on endocrinological emphasis responses. Enger ( 1981 ) observed harm to the centripetal epithelial tissue of the interior ear of the pod Gadus morhua after exposure to intense noise. However, fishes are able to retrieve from noise-induced threshold displacements within a few yearss, likely due to hair cell recovery or regeneration capablenesss ( Smith, 2006 ) . In our survey, the maximal uninterrupted sound exposure was 5 proceedingss, safely leting us to reason that no centripetal harm was by chance inflicted to the fishes, in the class of any of the experiments performed.
Furthermore, sounds perceived by fish as biological are normally at a lower frequence degree ( Rogers and Cox 1988 ) .Spatial favoritism has been long suggested to happen in fishes by the usage of receptors arrayed over a big country of the fish tegument, which act like a retina upon which the discharge undertakings “electric images” ( the electrolocation procedure ) ( Graff et al, 2004 ) . This mechanism is sought to ease distant favoritism of objects harmonizing to their composing, their size or their distance and is sought to originate in catfish that are non, nevertheless, conditioned to the disposal of sound and eating. In our experiments, we have overcome the disambiguation of this mechanism in our hypothesized mechanical/sensory sound localisation by swim vesicas, by indiscriminately utilizing the chosen UW-30 talker out of four mounted at 0, 90,180, and 270? along the border of the armored combat vehicle. However, it can be argued moreover that with wages and preparation, the fish could perchance acknowledge the sound inception by acknowledgment and conditioning of piezoelectric stimulations or even alterations in surface H2O wave formations ( infrasound and additive acceleration-Sand and Karlsen, 2000 ) sent off by the talkers. It is true that submerged talkers inside little armored combat vehicles generate high sums of atom gesture relation to force per unit area ( Parvulescu, 1967 ) . This restriction is overcome when puting the fish 3-50 centimeter below the H2O surface, as we did in our experiments, when utilizing an submerged beginning ( Smith, 2006 ) , ( Mann et al, 2001 ) .
This is clear because the sidelong line system is able to observe nearfield atom gestures merely up to at a distance of a few centimetres ( Sand 1981 ) .Furthermore, even if the pressure/particle gesture hypothesis was true, the determination of loss of localisation when swim vesicas were deflated would farther turn out that swim vesicas are the exact and alone location of the sound localisation mechanism in Loricariidae. The electrophysiological informations on directional sensitiveness obtained by vibrating the Carassius auratus in air by Ma and Fay, 2002 exclude force per unit area stimulation via the swim vesica.
However, a separate encryption of sound force per unit area and incident atom gesture, and stage comparing of these sound parametric quantities is possible in the swim vesica. The otophysan species ide ( Leuciscus idus ) is an illustration, being able to know apart between opposing sound beginnings in the horizontal plane ( Schuijf et al. 1977 ) . In Atlantic pod, an audile map of the swim vesica has been demonstrated in both behavioural ( Chapman and Hawkins 1973 ) and electrophysiological ( Sand and Enger 1973 ) experiments.ABR or audile brain-stem response is a non-invasive far-field recording of synchronal nervous activity in the audile tract and has been shown to be superior to developing since it includes rapid whole-animal measurings without time-consuming preparation and the chance to repeatedly utilize the same trial topics since it does non for good harm animate beings.
We have chosen non to utilize ABR in the current experiments but we anticipate their application in future surveies directed at the electrochemical cogent evidence of spacial localisation in O. affinis utilizing swim vesica impaired fish topics, to further clarify the neural mechanisms behind the control of spacial localisation.In decision, the spacial localisation of O.
affinis was shown by experimentation to depend upon the integral status and functional ability of the swim vesica, which when deflated demonstrated the fishes ‘ reduced capableness to turn up a antecedently identified sound beginning ( conditioned with eating ) . This determination is fresh in fish bioacoustics and represents initial experimental cogent evidence in the word picture of this anatomical construction ( the Weberian bonelet ) as a middle-ear pre-evolutionary construction ( Chardon, 1997 ) , which provides with sense of way of sound and serves as a possible bone or centripetal transducer for the upper degree neural favoritism in brain-stem auditory and perceptual experience Centres. Further research is warranted for the experimental reproduction of the findings, and the elucidation of all the involved stairss in spacial localisation in O. affinis.
E. ; Schaefer S. A. 2002. The temporal part of the braincase of loricarioid mudcats ( Teleostei: Siluriformes ) : morphological diverseness and phyletic significance. Zool.
Anz. 241: pp. 223-244, 2002.Arratia G. 2003.
Catfishes, Vol 1. Enfield, NH: Science Publishers, Inc.Bridge TW, Haddon AC. 1889. Contribution to the anatomy of fishes volume I. The airbladder and Weberian bonelets in the Siluridae. Proc Roy Soc Lond 46: 209-227.Chapman CJ, Hawkins AD 1973 A field survey of hearing in the pod, Gadus morhua L.
J Comp Physiol 85:147-167Chardon M, Vandewalle P. 1997. Evolutionary tendencies and possible beginning of the Weberian setup. Neth J Zoo 47 ( 4 ) : 383-403Coburn MM, Grubach PG. 1998. Ontogeny of the Weberian setup in the armoured catfish Corydoras paleatus ( Siluriformes: Callichthyidae ) . Copeia 1998: 301-311Dijgraaf S. 1960.
Hearing in Bony Fishes. Proc Roy Soc Lond. Series B. Vol. 152. 946: 51-54Enger, P.S. , 1981.
Frequency favoritism in teleosts – cardinal or peripheral. In: Tavolga, W.N. , Popper, A.N. , Fay, R.R. ( Eds.
) , Hearing and Sound Communication in Fishes. Springer, New York, pp. 243-253.Fay R. R.
1988 Hearing in Vertebrates: a Psychophysics Databook. Hill-Fay Associates, Winnetka, IL, USA, 1988.Fay R. R. 2005 Sound beginning localisation by fishes. In A.
N. Popper and R. R. Fay, eds.
, Sound Source Localization, pp. 36-66. Springer Science – Business Media, Inc. , New York, N.Y. , 2005.Godin OA.
2008. Sound transmittal through water-air interfaces: new penetrations into an old job. Contemp Phys. Vol.
49. ( 2 ) p105-123Graff C. , Kaminski G.
, Gresty M. , Ohlmann T. 2004. Fish Perform Spatial Pattern Recognition and Abstraction by Exclusive Use of Active Electrolocation Current Biology, 14 ( 9 ) ; P: 818-823Ladich F, Popper AN.
2004. Parallel development in fish hearing variety meats. In: Manfully GA, Popper AN, Fay RR, editors. Development of the craniate auditory system. New York, NY: Springer. p 95-127.Ladich F, Fine M. 2006 Sound-generating mechanisms in fishes: a alone diverseness in craniates.
In F. Ladich, S. P. Collin, P. Moller, and B.
G. Kapoor, eds. , Communication in Fishes, Vol. I. , ch. 1, pp. 3-43. Science-Publishers, Enfield, N.
H. , 2006.Ladich F, Wysocki LE. 2003.
How does tripus ablation affect audile sensitiveness in goldfish? Hear Res 182:119-129.Ladich, F. 2001. The sound-generating ( and -detecting ) motor system in mudcats: design of swimbladder musculuss in doradids and pimelodids. Anatomical Record 263, 297 – 306Lechner W, Ladich F.
2008. Size affairs: diverseness in swimbladders and Weberian bonelets affects hearing in mudcats. Jour Exp Biol 211: 1681-1689Lechner, W. , Wysocki L.E. , Ladich F.
2010. Ontogenetic development of audile sensitiveness and sound production in the squeaker catfish Synodontis schoutedeni. BMC Biology 8, 10Lombarte A, Popper AN. 2004. Quantitative alterations in the otolithic variety meats of the interior ear during the colony period in European hake Merluccius Merluccius.
Mar Ecol Prog Ser 267: 233-240.Ma WLD, Fay RR 2002. Nervous representations of the axis of acoustic atom gesture in nucleus centralis of the toroid semicircularis of the Carassius auratus, Carassius auratus. JComp Physiol A 188:301-313.
Mann, D.A. , Higgs, D.M.
, Tavolga, W.N. , Souza, M.J.
, Popper, A.N. 2001. Ultrasound sensing by clupeiform fishes.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 109, 3048-3054.Parvulescu, A.
, 1967. The acoustics of little armored combat vehicles. In: Tavolga, W.N.
( Ed. ) , Marine Bio- Acoustics. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 7-13.Popper AN, Fay RR, 1999.
The Auditory Periphery in Fishes. In: Fay RR, Popper AN, editors. Comparative hearing: fish and amphibious vehicles.
New York: Springer. p 43-100.Popper AN, Schilt CR. 2008. Hearing and acoustic behaviour: basic and applied considerations. In: Webb JF, Popper AN, Fay RR, editors. Fish Bioacoustics. New York, NY: Springer.
p 17-48.Rogers P, Cox M. 1988. Underwater sound as a biological stimulation. In: Atema J, Fay RR, Popper AN, Tavolga WN, editors. Sensory Biology of Aquatic Animals. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, p 131-149.Rogers PH.
, Zeddies DG. 2008. Multipole Mechanisms for Directional Hearing in Fish. In: Webb JF, Popper AN, Fay RR, editors.
Fish Bioacoustics. New York, NY: Springer. p 99-144.Rosen DE, Greenwood PH. ( 1970 ) .
Beginning of the Weberian setup and the relationships of the ostariophysan and gonorynchiform fishes. Amer Mus Nov 2428: 1-25Saidel WM, Popper AN. 1983. Spatial organisation in the sacculus and sagena of a teleost: hair cell form and excitation. J Morph 177: 301-317.Sand O. Bleckmann H. 2008.
Orientation to Auditory and Lateral Line Stimuli. In: Webb JF, Popper AN, Fay RR, editors. Fish Bioacoustics.
New York, NY: Springer. p 99-144.Sand O, Enger PS 1973. Evidence for an audile map of the swim vesica in the pod. J Exp Biol 59:405-414.Sand O, Karlsen HE. ( 2000 ) Detection of infrasound and additive acceleration in fishes.
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 29 ; 355 ( 1401 ) :1295-8.Sand O 1981 The lateral-line and sound response.
In: Tavolga WN, Popper AN, Fay RR ( explosive detection systems ) Hearing and Sound Communication in Fishes. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 459-480Schaefer S. 1987. Osteology of Hypostomus plecostomus with a phyletic analysis of the loricariid subfamilies ( Fishs: Siluroidei ) . Contrib Sci 394:1-31Schuijf A, Visser C, Willers AFM, Buwalda RJA ( 1977 ) Acoustic localisation in an ostariophysian fish. Experientia 33:1062-1063.Smith, M.
E. , Coffin, A.B. , Miller, D.L. , Popper, A.N. , 2006.
Anatomical and functional recovery of the Carassius auratus ( Carassius auratus ) ear following noise exposure. J. Exp.
Biol. 209, 4193-4202.Van Bergeijk WA. 1967.
The Development of Vertebrate Hearing. In: Neff WD, editor. Contributions to Sensory Physiology. Vol. 2.
New York, NY: Academic. p 1-49.von Frisch K.
( 1938 ) The sense of hearing in fish. Nature 141: pp. 8-11, 1938.
Weber EH. 1820. De Aure et Auditu Hominis et Animalium. Pars I. De Aure Animalium Aquatilium. Leipzig: Gerhard Fleischer.Weitzmann SH. 2005.
Hearing in mudcats particularly that of the household Loricarridae. In: Hans-Georg Tocopherol, Seidel I, editors. Catfish Atlas. Vol. 1. Washington DC: Baensch.
P 31-39.Wysocki, L. E. , Ladich F. 2001. The ontogenetic development of audile sensitiveness, voice and acoustic communicating in the labyrinth fish Trichopsis vittata. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 187, 177 – 187