Annemarie Surlykke
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Annemarie Surlykke has a total of 21 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Lasse Jakobsen
Department of Biology, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230 Odense, Denmark
3 shared publications - Magnus Wahlberg
Department of Biology University of Southern Denmark Odense Denmark
2 shared publications - Peter Teglberg Madsen
Zoophysiology, Department of Biology, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
2 shared publications Andrew J. Spence
Department of Applied and Engineering Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
1 shared publication- Bruno A. Olshausen
Redwood Center for Theoretical Neuroscience
1 shared publication Cornelia Geberl
Department of Biologie II, Division of Neurobiology, Ludwig Maximilians University, 82152 Martinsried, Germany; and
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 16 March 2015
- Published by National Academy of Sciences in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Vol. 112 (13) , 4122-4127
Fast sensory–motor reactions in echolocating bats to sudden changes during the final buzz and prey intercept
Echolocation is an active sense enabling bats and toothed whales to orient in darkness through echo returns from their ultrasonic signals. Immediately before prey capture, both bats and whales emit a buzz with such high emission rates (≥180 Hz) and overall duration so short that its functional significance remains an enigma. To investigate sensory–motor control during the buzz of the insectivorous bat Myotis daubentonii, we removed prey, suspended in air or on water, before expected capture. The bats responded by shortening their echolocation buzz gradually; the earlier prey was removed down to approximately 100 ms (30 cm) before expected capture, after which the full buzz sequence was emitted both in air and over water. Bats trawling over water also performed the full capture behavior, but in-air capture motions were aborted, even at very late prey removals (<20 ms = 6 cm before expected contact). Thus, neither the buzz nor capture movements are stereotypical, but dynamically adapted based on sensory feedback. The results indicate that echolocation is controlled mainly by acoustic feedback, whereas capture movements are adjusted according to both acoustic and somatosensory feedback, suggesting separate (but coordinated) central motor control of the two behaviors based on multimodal input. Bat echolocation, especially the terminal buzz, provides a unique window to extremely fast decision processes in response to sensory feedback and modulation through attention in a naturally behaving animal.
- 16 March 2015
- Published by National Academy of Sciences in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Vol. 112 (13) , 4122-4127
Fast sensory–motor reactions in echolocating bats to sudden changes during the final buzz and prey intercept
Echolocation is an active sense enabling bats and toothed whales to orient in darkness through echo returns from their ultrasonic signals. Immediately before prey capture, both bats and whales emit a buzz with such high emission rates (≥180 Hz) and overall duration so short that its functional significance remains an enigma. To investigate sensory–motor control during the buzz of the insectivorous bat Myotis daubentonii, we removed prey, suspended in air or on water, before expected capture. The bats responded by shortening their echolocation buzz gradually; the earlier prey was removed down to approximately 100 ms (30 cm) before expected capture, after which the full buzz sequence was emitted both in air and over water. Bats trawling over water also performed the full capture behavior, but in-air capture motions were aborted, even at very late prey removals (<20 ms = 6 cm before expected contact). Thus, neither the buzz nor capture movements are stereotypical, but dynamically adapted based on sensory feedback. The results indicate that echolocation is controlled mainly by acoustic feedback, whereas capture movements are adjusted according to both acoustic and somatosensory feedback, suggesting separate (but coordinated) central motor control of the two behaviors based on multimodal input. Bat echolocation, especially the terminal buzz, provides a unique window to extremely fast decision processes in response to sensory feedback and modulation through attention in a naturally behaving animal.
- 27 September 2014
- Published by Springer Nature in Journal of Comparative Physiology A
- Vol. 201 (1) , 111-121
Moth hearing and sound communication
Active echolocation enables bats to orient and hunt the night sky for insects. As a counter-measure against the severe predation pressure many nocturnal insects have evolved ears sensitive to ultrasonic bat calls. In moths bat-detection was the principal purpose of hearing, as evidenced by comparable hearing physiology with best sensitivity in the bat echolocation range, 20–60 kHz, across moths in spite of diverse ear morphology. Some eared moths subsequently developed sound-producing organs to warn/startle/jam attacking bats and/or to communicate intraspecifically with sound. Not only the sounds for interaction with bats, but also mating signals are within the frequency range where bats echolocate, indicating that sound communication developed after hearing by “sensory exploitation”. Recent findings on moth sound communication reveal that close-range (~ a few cm) communication with low-intensity ultrasounds “whispered” by males during courtship is not uncommon, contrary to the general notion of moths predominantly being silent. Sexual sound communication in moths may apply to many eared moths, perhaps even a majority. The low intensities and high frequencies explain that this was overlooked, revealing a bias towards what humans can sense, when studying (acoustic) communication in animals.
- 27 September 2014
- Published by Springer Nature in Journal of Comparative Physiology A
- Vol. 201 (1) , 111-121
Moth hearing and sound communication
Active echolocation enables bats to orient and hunt the night sky for insects. As a counter-measure against the severe predation pressure many nocturnal insects have evolved ears sensitive to ultrasonic bat calls. In moths bat-detection was the principal purpose of hearing, as evidenced by comparable hearing physiology with best sensitivity in the bat echolocation range, 20–60 kHz, across moths in spite of diverse ear morphology. Some eared moths subsequently developed sound-producing organs to warn/startle/jam attacking bats and/or to communicate intraspecifically with sound. Not only the sounds for interaction with bats, but also mating signals are within the frequency range where bats echolocate, indicating that sound communication developed after hearing by “sensory exploitation”. Recent findings on moth sound communication reveal that close-range (~ a few cm) communication with low-intensity ultrasounds “whispered” by males during courtship is not uncommon, contrary to the general notion of moths predominantly being silent. Sexual sound communication in moths may apply to many eared moths, perhaps even a majority. The low intensities and high frequencies explain that this was overlooked, revealing a bias towards what humans can sense, when studying (acoustic) communication in animals.
- 23 June 2014
- Published by Springer Nature
- p. 107-141
Sound Intensities of Biosonar Signals from Bats and Toothed Whales
- 23 June 2014
- Published by Springer Nature
- p. 107-141
Sound Intensities of Biosonar Signals from Bats and Toothed Whales
- Open Access
- 1 April 2014
- Published by Frontiers Media SA in Frontiers in Psychology
- Vol. 5, 199
Scene analysis in the natural environment
The problem of scene analysis has been studied in a number of different fields over the past decades. These studies have led to a number of important insights into problems of scene analysis, but not all of these insights are widely appreciated. Despite this progress, there are also critical shortcomings in current approaches that hinder further progress. Here we take the view that scene analysis is a universal problem solved by all animals, and that we can gain new insight by studying the problems that animals face in complex natural environments. In particular, the jumping spider, songbird, echolocating bat, and electric fish, all exhibit behaviors that require robust solutions to scene analysis problems encountered in the natural environment. By examining the behaviors of these seemingly disparate animals, we emerge with a framework for studying analysis comprising four essential properties: 1) the ability to solve ill-posed problems, 2) the ability to integrate and store information across time and modality, 3) efficient recovery and representation of 3D scene structure, and 4) the use of optimal motor actions for acquiring information to progress towards behavioral goals.
- 1 April 2014
- Published by Frontiers Media SA in Frontiers in Psychology
- Vol. 5, 199
Open AccessScene analysis in the natural environment
The problem of scene analysis has been studied in a number of different fields over the past decades. These studies have led to a number of important insights into problems of scene analysis, but not all of these insights are widely appreciated. Despite this progress, there are also critical shortcomings in current approaches that hinder further progress. Here we take the view that scene analysis is a universal problem solved by all animals, and that we can gain new insight by studying the problems that animals face in complex natural environments. In particular, the jumping spider, songbird, echolocating bat, and electric fish, all exhibit behaviors that require robust solutions to scene analysis problems encountered in the natural environment. By examining the behaviors of these seemingly disparate animals, we emerge with a framework for studying analysis comprising four essential properties: 1) the ability to solve ill-posed problems, 2) the ability to integrate and store information across time and modality, 3) efficient recovery and representation of 3D scene structure, and 4) the use of optimal motor actions for acquiring information to progress towards behavioral goals.
- Open Access
- 1 January 2013
- Published by Frontiers Media SA in Frontiers in Physiology
- Vol. 4, 48755
Echolocation intensity and directionality of perching and flying fringe-lipped bats, Trachops cirrhosus (Phyllostomidae)
The Neotropical frog-eating bat, Trachops cirrhosus, primarily hunts stationary prey, either by gleaning on the wing, or in a sit-and-wait mode hanging from a perch. It listens passively for prey-generated sounds, but uses echolocation in all stages of the hunt. Like other bats in the family Phyllostomidae, T. cirrhosus has a conspicuous nose leaf, hypothesized to direct and focus echolocation calls emitted from the nostrils. T. cirrhosus is highly flexible in its cognitive abilities and its use of sensory strategies for prey detection. Additionally, T. cirrhosus has been observed to echolocate both with closed and open mouth. We hypothesize that its flexibility extends to echolocation call design. We investigated the effect of hunting mode, perching or flying, as well as the effect of mouth opening, on the acoustic parameters and directionality of the echolocation call. We used a multi-microphone array, a high-speed video camera, and a microphone-diode-video system to directly visualize the echolocation sound beam synchronized with the bat's behavior. We found that T. cirrhosus emits a highly directional sound beam with half amplitude angle (HAM) of 12–18° and DI (directionality index) of ~17 dB, among the most directional bat sonar beams measured to date. The directionality was high both when flying and when perching. The emitted intensity was low, around 88 dB SPL at 10 cm from the mouth, when hanging, but higher, around 100 dB SPL at 10 cm, when flying or just before take-off. Our data suggests that the limited search volume of T. cirrhosus sonar beam defined by the high directionality and the rather low intensity of its echolocation calls is adapted to the highly cluttered hunting habitat and to the perch hunting mode.
- 1 January 2013
- Published by Frontiers Media SA in Frontiers in Physiology
- Vol. 4, 48755
Open AccessEcholocation intensity and directionality of perching and flying fringe-lipped bats, Trachops cirrhosus (Phyllostomidae)
The Neotropical frog-eating bat, Trachops cirrhosus, primarily hunts stationary prey, either by gleaning on the wing, or in a sit-and-wait mode hanging from a perch. It listens passively for prey-generated sounds, but uses echolocation in all stages of the hunt. Like other bats in the family Phyllostomidae, T. cirrhosus has a conspicuous nose leaf, hypothesized to direct and focus echolocation calls emitted from the nostrils. T. cirrhosus is highly flexible in its cognitive abilities and its use of sensory strategies for prey detection. Additionally, T. cirrhosus has been observed to echolocate both with closed and open mouth. We hypothesize that its flexibility extends to echolocation call design. We investigated the effect of hunting mode, perching or flying, as well as the effect of mouth opening, on the acoustic parameters and directionality of the echolocation call. We used a multi-microphone array, a high-speed video camera, and a microphone-diode-video system to directly visualize the echolocation sound beam synchronized with the bat's behavior. We found that T. cirrhosus emits a highly directional sound beam with half amplitude angle (HAM) of 12–18° and DI (directionality index) of ~17 dB, among the most directional bat sonar beams measured to date. The directionality was high both when flying and when perching. The emitted intensity was low, around 88 dB SPL at 10 cm from the mouth, when hanging, but higher, around 100 dB SPL at 10 cm, when flying or just before take-off. Our data suggests that the limited search volume of T. cirrhosus sonar beam defined by the high directionality and the rather low intensity of its echolocation calls is adapted to the highly cluttered hunting habitat and to the perch hunting mode.
- Open Access
- 1 January 2013
- Published by Frontiers Media SA in Frontiers in Physiology
- Vol. 4, 89
Intensity and directionality of bat echolocation signals
The paper reviews current knowledge of intensity and directionality of bat echolocation signals. Recent studies have revealed that echolocating bats can be much louder than previously believed. Bats previously dubbed “whispering” can emit calls with source levels up to 110 dB SPL at 10 cm and the louder open space hunting bats have been recorded at above 135 dB SPL. This implies that maximum emitted intensities are generally 30 dB or more above initial estimates. Bats’ dynamic control of acoustic features also includes the intensity and directionality of their sonar calls. Aerial hawking bats will increase signal directionality in the field along with intensity thus increasing sonar range. During the last phase of prey pursuit, vespertilionid bats broaden their echolocation beam considerably, probably to counter evasive manoeuvres of eared prey. We highlight how multiple call parameters (frequency, duration, intensity and directionality of echolocation signals) in unison define the search volume probed by bats and in turn how bats perceive their surroundings. Small changes to individual parameters can, in combination, drastically change the bat’s perception, facilitating successful navigation and food acquisition across a vast range of ecological niches. To better understand the function of echolocation in the natural habitat it is critical to determine multiple acoustic features of the echolocation calls. The combined (interactive) effects, not only of frequency and time parameters, but also of intensity and directionality, define the bat’s view of its acoustic scene.
- 1 January 2013
- Published by Frontiers Media SA in Frontiers in Physiology
- Vol. 4, 89
Open AccessIntensity and directionality of bat echolocation signals
The paper reviews current knowledge of intensity and directionality of bat echolocation signals. Recent studies have revealed that echolocating bats can be much louder than previously believed. Bats previously dubbed “whispering” can emit calls with source levels up to 110 dB SPL at 10 cm and the louder open space hunting bats have been recorded at above 135 dB SPL. This implies that maximum emitted intensities are generally 30 dB or more above initial estimates. Bats’ dynamic control of acoustic features also includes the intensity and directionality of their sonar calls. Aerial hawking bats will increase signal directionality in the field along with intensity thus increasing sonar range. During the last phase of prey pursuit, vespertilionid bats broaden their echolocation beam considerably, probably to counter evasive manoeuvres of eared prey. We highlight how multiple call parameters (frequency, duration, intensity and directionality of echolocation signals) in unison define the search volume probed by bats and in turn how bats perceive their surroundings. Small changes to individual parameters can, in combination, drastically change the bat’s perception, facilitating successful navigation and food acquisition across a vast range of ecological niches. To better understand the function of echolocation in the natural habitat it is critical to determine multiple acoustic features of the echolocation calls. The combined (interactive) effects, not only of frequency and time parameters, but also of intensity and directionality, define the bat’s view of its acoustic scene.
- Open Access
- 1 January 2013
- Published by Frontiers Media SA in Frontiers in Physiology
- Vol. 4, 137
Ultrasonic predator–prey interactions in water–convergent evolution with insects and bats in air?
Toothed whales and bats have independently evolved biosonar systems to navigate and locate and catch prey. Such active sensing allows them to operate in darkness, but with the potential cost of warning prey by the emission of intense ultrasonic signals. At least six orders of nocturnal insects have independently evolved ears sensitive to ultrasound and exhibit evasive maneuvers when exposed to bat calls. Among aquatic prey on the other hand, the ability to detect and avoid ultrasound emitting predators seems to be limited to only one subfamily of Clupeidae: the Alosinae (shad and menhaden). These differences are likely rooted in the different physical properties of air and water where cuticular mechanoreceptors have been adapted to serve as ultrasound sensitive ears, whereas ultrasound detection in water have called for sensory cells mechanically connected to highly specialized gas volumes that can oscillate at high frequencies. In addition, there are most likely differences in the risk of predation between insects and fish from echolocating predators. The selection pressure among insects for evolving ultrasound sensitive ears is high, because essentially all nocturnal predation on flying insects stems from echolocating bats. In the interaction between toothed whales and their prey the selection pressure seems weaker, because toothed whales are by no means the only marine predators placing a selection pressure on their prey to evolve specific means to detect and avoid them. Toothed whales can generate extremely intense sound pressure levels, and it has been suggested that they may use these to debilitate prey. Recent experiments, however, show that neither fish with swim bladders, nor squid are debilitated by such signals. This strongly suggests that the production of high amplitude ultrasonic clicks serve the function of improving the detection range of the toothed whale biosonar system rather than debilitation of prey.
- 1 January 2013
- Published by Frontiers Media SA in Frontiers in Physiology
- Vol. 4, 137
Open AccessUltrasonic predator–prey interactions in water–convergent evolution with insects and bats in air?
Toothed whales and bats have independently evolved biosonar systems to navigate and locate and catch prey. Such active sensing allows them to operate in darkness, but with the potential cost of warning prey by the emission of intense ultrasonic signals. At least six orders of nocturnal insects have independently evolved ears sensitive to ultrasound and exhibit evasive maneuvers when exposed to bat calls. Among aquatic prey on the other hand, the ability to detect and avoid ultrasound emitting predators seems to be limited to only one subfamily of Clupeidae: the Alosinae (shad and menhaden). These differences are likely rooted in the different physical properties of air and water where cuticular mechanoreceptors have been adapted to serve as ultrasound sensitive ears, whereas ultrasound detection in water have called for sensory cells mechanically connected to highly specialized gas volumes that can oscillate at high frequencies. In addition, there are most likely differences in the risk of predation between insects and fish from echolocating predators. The selection pressure among insects for evolving ultrasound sensitive ears is high, because essentially all nocturnal predation on flying insects stems from echolocating bats. In the interaction between toothed whales and their prey the selection pressure seems weaker, because toothed whales are by no means the only marine predators placing a selection pressure on their prey to evolve specific means to detect and avoid them. Toothed whales can generate extremely intense sound pressure levels, and it has been suggested that they may use these to debilitate prey. Recent experiments, however, show that neither fish with swim bladders, nor squid are debilitated by such signals. This strongly suggests that the production of high amplitude ultrasonic clicks serve the function of improving the detection range of the toothed whale biosonar system rather than debilitation of prey.
- Open Access
- 2 December 2008
- Published by The Royal Society in Proceedings Of The Royal Society B-Biological Sciences
- Vol. 276 (1658) , 853-860
Echolocating bats emit a highly directional sonar sound beam in the field
Bats use echolocation or biosonar to navigate and find prey at night. They emit short ultrasonic calls and listen for reflected echoes. The beam width of the calls is central to the function of the sonar, but directionality of echolocation calls has never been measured from bats flying in the wild. We used a microphone array to record sounds and determine horizontal directionality for echolocation calls of the trawling Daubenton's bat,Myotis daubentonii, flying over a pond in its natural habitat.Myotis daubentoniiemitted highly directional calls in the field. Directionality increased with frequency. At 40 kHz half-amplitude angle was 25°, decreasing to 14° at 75 kHz. In the laboratory,M. daubentoniiemitted less intense and less directional calls. At 55 kHz half-amplitude angle was 40° in the laboratory versus 20° in the field. The relationship between frequency and directionality can be explained by the simple piston model. The model also suggests that the increase in the emitted intensity in the field is caused by the increased directionality, focusing sound energy in the forward direction. The bat may increase directionality by opening the mouth wider to emit a louder, narrower beam in the wild.
- 2 December 2008
- Published by The Royal Society in Proceedings Of The Royal Society B-Biological Sciences
- Vol. 276 (1658) , 853-860
Open AccessEcholocating bats emit a highly directional sonar sound beam in the field
Bats use echolocation or biosonar to navigate and find prey at night. They emit short ultrasonic calls and listen for reflected echoes. The beam width of the calls is central to the function of the sonar, but directionality of echolocation calls has never been measured from bats flying in the wild. We used a microphone array to record sounds and determine horizontal directionality for echolocation calls of the trawling Daubenton's bat,Myotis daubentonii, flying over a pond in its natural habitat.Myotis daubentoniiemitted highly directional calls in the field. Directionality increased with frequency. At 40 kHz half-amplitude angle was 25°, decreasing to 14° at 75 kHz. In the laboratory,M. daubentoniiemitted less intense and less directional calls. At 55 kHz half-amplitude angle was 40° in the laboratory versus 20° in the field. The relationship between frequency and directionality can be explained by the simple piston model. The model also suggests that the increase in the emitted intensity in the field is caused by the increased directionality, focusing sound energy in the forward direction. The bat may increase directionality by opening the mouth wider to emit a louder, narrower beam in the wild.