Volume 20, Issue 2, Pages (January 2010)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Mark Sayles, Ian M. Winter  Neuron 
Advertisements

Germán Sumbre, Graziano Fiorito, Tamar Flash, Binyamin Hochner 
Guangying K. Wu, Pingyang Li, Huizhong W. Tao, Li I. Zhang  Neuron 
Flying in Tune: Sexual Recognition in Mosquitoes
Volume 69, Issue 4, Pages (February 2011)
Individual Differences Reveal the Basis of Consonance
David M. Schneider, Sarah M.N. Woolley  Neuron 
Araceli Ramirez-Cardenas, Maria Moskaleva, Andreas Nieder 
Musical Consonance: The Importance of Harmonicity
Ji Dai, Daniel I. Brooks, David L. Sheinberg  Current Biology 
Walking Modulates Speed Sensitivity in Drosophila Motion Vision
Sexual Dimorphism in the Hoverfly Motion Vision Pathway
Ian M. Finn, Nicholas J. Priebe, David Ferster  Neuron 
Keeping up with Bats: Dynamic Auditory Tuning in a Moth
The Generation of Direction Selectivity in the Auditory System
Adam M. Corrigan, Jonathan R. Chubb  Current Biology 
Emergent acoustic order in arrays of mosquitoes
Sing-Hang Cheung, Fang Fang, Sheng He, Gordon E. Legge  Current Biology 
The Primate Cerebellum Selectively Encodes Unexpected Self-Motion
Preceding Inhibition Silences Layer 6 Neurons in Auditory Cortex
Speciation: Mosquitoes Singing in Harmony
Michael L. Morgan, Gregory C. DeAngelis, Dora E. Angelaki  Neuron 
Volume 24, Issue 6, Pages (March 2014)
Ben Scholl, Xiang Gao, Michael Wehr  Neuron 
Differential Impact of Behavioral Relevance on Quantity Coding in Primate Frontal and Parietal Neurons  Pooja Viswanathan, Andreas Nieder  Current Biology 
Auditory Neuroscience: How to Encode Microsecond Differences
A Role for the Superior Colliculus in Decision Criteria
Volume 71, Issue 4, Pages (August 2011)
Tom Baden, Federico Esposti, Anton Nikolaev, Leon Lagnado 
Jianing Yu, David Ferster  Neuron 
Effects of Locomotion Extend throughout the Mouse Early Visual System
Theta Oscillations during Active Sleep Synchronize the Developing Rubro-Hippocampal Sensorimotor Network  Carlos Del Rio-Bermudez, Jangjin Kim, Greta.
Airborne Acoustic Perception by a Jumping Spider
David M. Schneider, Sarah M.N. Woolley  Neuron 
Volume 19, Issue 3, Pages (April 2017)
Volume 27, Issue 23, Pages e3 (December 2017)
Auditory Efferent System Modulates Mosquito Hearing
Walking Modulates Speed Sensitivity in Drosophila Motion Vision
How Local Is the Local Field Potential?
Volume 27, Issue 21, Pages e3 (November 2017)
Perception Matches Selectivity in the Human Anterior Color Center
Sex Recognition through Midflight Mating Duets in Culex Mosquitoes Is Mediated by Acoustic Distortion  Ben Warren, Gabriella Gibson, Ian J. Russell  Current.
Optic flow induces spatial filtering in fruit flies
Timescales of Inference in Visual Adaptation
Volume 27, Issue 2, Pages (January 2017)
Auditory-Visual Crossmodal Integration in Perception of Face Gender
Raghav Rajan, Allison J. Doupe  Current Biology 
Function and Evolution of Vibrato-like Frequency Modulation in Mammals
Local Origin of Field Potentials in Visual Cortex
Encoding of Oscillations by Axonal Bursts in Inferior Olive Neurons
Volume 28, Issue 8, Pages e3 (April 2018)
Akinori Mitani, Mingyuan Dong, Takaki Komiyama  Current Biology 
Tuning to Natural Stimulus Dynamics in Primary Auditory Cortex
Volume 58, Issue 1, Pages (April 2008)
When Correlation Implies Causation in Multisensory Integration
Transient Slow Gamma Synchrony Underlies Hippocampal Memory Replay
Bettina Schnell, Ivo G. Ros, Michael H. Dickinson  Current Biology 
Daniela Vallentin, Andreas Nieder  Current Biology 
Xiaowei Chen, Nathalie L. Rochefort, Bert Sakmann, Arthur Konnerth 
Mechanical Communication Acts as a Noise Filter
Volume 21, Issue 23, Pages (December 2011)
Jan Benda, André Longtin, Leonard Maler  Neuron 
Marie P. Suver, Akira Mamiya, Michael H. Dickinson  Current Biology 
Coupled Oscillator Dynamics of Vocal Turn-Taking in Monkeys
Tom Baden, Federico Esposti, Anton Nikolaev, Leon Lagnado 
Supratim Ray, John H.R. Maunsell  Neuron 
Gaby Maimon, Andrew D. Straw, Michael H. Dickinson  Current Biology 
Motion Adaptation and the Velocity Coding of Natural Scenes
Matthew W. Hahn, Gregory C. Lanzaro  Current Biology 
George D. Dickinson, Ian Parker  Biophysical Journal 
Presentation transcript:

Volume 20, Issue 2, Pages 131-136 (January 2010) “Singing on the Wing” as a Mechanism for Species Recognition in the Malarial Mosquito Anopheles gambiae  Cédric Pennetier, Ben Warren, K. Roch Dabiré, Ian J. Russell, Gabriella Gibson  Current Biology  Volume 20, Issue 2, Pages 131-136 (January 2010) DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.11.040 Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Auditory Interactions between Tethered Flying Mosquitoes Image at upper left shows arrangement of particle velocity microphone and tethered mosquitoes during sound recordings. (A–F) Spectrograms (reconstructed from digitized fundamental frequencies) of flight tones with harmonics of males (blue) and females (red) and periods of frequency matching (gray, male; green, female). (A and B) Same-form pairs of M-form (A) and S-form (B) mosquitoes, showing extended frequency matching (gray, male; green, female) when the female's third and the male's second harmonics converge, at a ratio between their fundamental wing-beat frequencies of 3:2 (i.e., 1.5, a harmonic-based ratio). (C and D) Expanded views of 4 s of the spectrograms of (A) and (B), respectively, showing periods of frequency matching between the female's third and the male's second harmonics of their flight tones. (E and F) Mixed-form pairs of S female and M male (E) and M male and S female (F), showing only transient periods of frequency matching between harmonics. The ratio between their fundamental wing-beat frequencies does not stabilize at a harmonic-based value. Current Biology 2010 20, 131-136DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2009.11.040) Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Comparison of Mean Wing-Beat Frequencies of Same- and Mixed-Form Pairs of Anopheles gambiae M- and S-Form Mosquitoes at the 3:2 Harmonic Frequencies (A) Same-form pairs: male (square) mean ± standard deviation wing-beat frequency plotted against female (triangle) mean wing-beat frequency for M-form (black) and S-form (red) pairs during frequency matching (thick lines) and nonmatching (thin lines) sequences. The dashed line denotes slope = 1, i.e., perfect frequency matching. (B) Mixed-form pairs: mean wing-beat frequencies of nonmatching S female-M male pairs and M female-S male pairs. Current Biology 2010 20, 131-136DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2009.11.040) Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Mechanical and Receptor Potential Tuning Curves from the Flagellum and Johnston's Organ of Anopheles gambiae M-Form Mosquitoes (A) Top: schematic cross-section of mosquito antenna, with flagellum (F) inserted into cup-shaped pedicel that houses complex arrangement of cuticular processes (C) and attached mechanosensory scolopidia (S) of the Johnston's organ (JO) [31]. Bottom: photomontage of male An. gambiae mosquito head, with fibrillae collapsed at left (inactive phase) and extended at right (active phase; dusk). (B) Mechanical threshold frequency tuning curve (mean ± standard deviation, vertical bars) measured from base of flagellum in male mosquitoes (blue symbols) with collapsed (filled symbols) and extended (open symbols) fibrillae and in female mosquitoes (red symbols). Arrows indicate sensitivity peaks at 700 and 1400 Hz. Dotted lines indicate flight tone at the highest frequency that mosquitoes are likely to encounter and to which antennae can respond [23]. (C) Main panel: compound phasic (2f) receptor potential frequency tuning curves (mean ± standard deviation, vertical bars) measured from JO of male mosquito with collapsed (•) and extended (○) fibrillae. Inset: receptor potential (gray) with direct current (DC) component (red line) from a male with collapsed fibrillae in response to a 300 Hz tone, particle velocity 0.0011 ms−1. Right: receptor potential tuning curves derived from the 2f component (black) and DC component (red) of the receptor potential. Current Biology 2010 20, 131-136DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2009.11.040) Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Difference Tones Generated in the Vibrations of the Flagellum and Detected in the Receptor Potentials of the Johnston's Organ of Anopheles gambiae M-Form Mosquitoes (A and B) Recordings from male An. gambiae of amplitude spectra of flagellum vibrations (A) and JO compound receptor potentials (B) in response to a pair of tones at 1399 Hz (f1) and 1499 Hz (f2), both at a particle velocity of 0.0011 ms−1. Additional distortion products produced by the interaction of tones f1 and f2 with the spontaneous oscillations (SOs) are also shown. (C–F) Difference tones in mechanical (flagellum) (C and D) and electrical (JO) (E and F) spectra in response to tones at the frequencies indicated, with particle velocities of 0.005 ms−1. Responses to the primary tones (f1 and f2) are seen in the mechanical but not in the electrical responses. Difference tone (f2 − f1) and SO responses are seen in both the mechanical and electrical spectra. Current Biology 2010 20, 131-136DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2009.11.040) Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions