» Articles » PMID: 20808882

A Cervid Vocal Fold Model Suggests Greater Glottal Efficiency in Calling at High Frequencies

Overview
Specialty Biology
Date 2010 Sep 3
PMID 20808882
Citations 18
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Male Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) produce loud and high fundamental frequency bugles during the mating season, in contrast to the male European Red Deer (Cervus elaphus scoticus) who produces loud and low fundamental frequency roaring calls. A critical step in understanding vocal communication is to relate sound complexity to anatomy and physiology in a causal manner. Experimentation at the sound source, often difficult in vivo in mammals, is simulated here by a finite element model of the larynx and a wave propagation model of the vocal tract, both based on the morphology and biomechanics of the elk. The model can produce a wide range of fundamental frequencies. Low fundamental frequencies require low vocal fold strain, but large lung pressure and large glottal flow if sound intensity level is to exceed 70 dB at 10 m distance. A high-frequency bugle requires both large muscular effort (to strain the vocal ligament) and high lung pressure (to overcome phonation threshold pressure), but at least 10 dB more intensity level can be achieved. Glottal efficiency, the ration of radiated sound power to aerodynamic power at the glottis, is higher in elk, suggesting an advantage of high-pitched signaling. This advantage is based on two aspects; first, the lower airflow required for aerodynamic power and, second, an acoustic radiation advantage at higher frequencies. Both signal types are used by the respective males during the mating season and probably serve as honest signals. The two signal types relate differently to physical qualities of the sender. The low-frequency sound (Red Deer call) relates to overall body size via a strong relationship between acoustic parameters and the size of vocal organs and body size. The high-frequency bugle may signal muscular strength and endurance, via a 'vocalizing at the edge' mechanism, for which efficiency is critical.

Citing Articles

Linguistic law-like compression strategies emerge to maximize coding efficiency in marmoset vocal communication.

Risueno-Segovia C, Dohmen D, Gultekin Y, Pomberger T, Hage S Proc Biol Sci. 2023; 290(2007):20231503.

PMID: 37752844 PMC: 10523061. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2023.1503.


Investigation of phonatory characteristics using ex vivo rabbit larynges.

Dollinger M, Kniesburges S, Berry D, Birk V, Wendler O, Durr S J Acoust Soc Am. 2018; 144(1):142.

PMID: 30075689 PMC: 6037535. DOI: 10.1121/1.5043384.


Trade-offs in the production of animal vocal sequences: insights from the structure of wild chimpanzee pant hoots.

Fedurek P, Zuberbuhler K, Semple S Front Zool. 2017; 14:50.

PMID: 29142585 PMC: 5674848. DOI: 10.1186/s12983-017-0235-8.


Comparison of a fiber-gel finite element model of vocal fold vibration to a transversely isotropic stiffness model.

Titze I, Alipour F, Blake D, Palaparthi A J Acoust Soc Am. 2017; 142(3):1376.

PMID: 28964045 PMC: 5595586. DOI: 10.1121/1.5001055.


In situ vocal fold properties and pitch prediction by dynamic actuation of the songbird syrinx.

During D, Knorlein B, Elemans C Sci Rep. 2017; 7(1):11296.

PMID: 28900151 PMC: 5595934. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-11258-1.


References
1.
Oberweger K, Goller F . The metabolic cost of birdsong production. J Exp Biol. 2001; 204(Pt 19):3379-88. DOI: 10.1242/jeb.204.19.3379. View

2.
Russ D, Elliott M, Vandenborne K, Walter G, Binder-Macleod S . Metabolic costs of isometric force generation and maintenance of human skeletal muscle. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2002; 282(2):E448-57. DOI: 10.1152/ajpendo.00285.2001. View

3.
Alipour F, Scherer R, Finnegan E . Pressure-flow relationships during phonation as a function of adduction. J Voice. 1997; 11(2):187-94. DOI: 10.1016/s0892-1997(97)80077-x. View

4.
Cook D, Nauman E, Mongeau L . Ranking vocal fold model parameters by their influence on modal frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009; 126(4):2002-10. PMC: 2771058. DOI: 10.1121/1.3183592. View

5.
Zhang Z, Neubauer J, Berry D . The influence of subglottal acoustics on laboratory models of phonation. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006; 120(3):1558-69. DOI: 10.1121/1.2225682. View