» Articles » PMID: 32632013

How Frequency Hopping Suppresses Pulse-echo Ambiguity in Bat Biosonar

Overview
Specialty Science
Date 2020 Jul 8
PMID 32632013
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Big brown bats transmit wideband FM biosonar sounds that sweep from 55 to 25 kHz (first harmonic, FM1) and from 110 to 50 kHz (second harmonic, FM2). FM1 is required to perceive echo delay for target ranging; FM2 contributes only if corresponding FM1 frequencies are present. We show that echoes need only the lowest FM1 broadcast frequencies of 25 to 30 kHz for delay perception. If these frequencies are removed, no delay is perceived. Bats begin echo processing at the lowest frequencies and accumulate perceptual acuity over successively higher frequencies, but they cannot proceed without the low-frequency starting point in their broadcasts. This reveals a solution to pulse-echo ambiguity, a serious problem for radar or sonar. In dense, extended biosonar scenes, bats have to emit sounds rapidly to avoid collisions with near objects. But if a new broadcast is emitted when echoes of the previous broadcast still are arriving, echoes from both broadcasts intermingle, creating ambiguity about which echo corresponds to which broadcast. Frequency hopping by several kilohertz from one broadcast to the next can segregate overlapping narrowband echo streams, but wideband FM echoes ordinarily do not segregate because their spectra still overlap. By starting echo processing at the lowest frequencies in frequency-hopped broadcasts, echoes of the higher hopped broadcast are prevented from being accepted by lower hopped broadcasts, and ambiguity is avoided. The bat-inspired spectrogram correlation and transformation (SCAT) model also begins at the lowest frequencies; echoes that lack them are eliminated from processing of delay and no longer cause ambiguity.

Citing Articles

Echolocating Bats Have Evolved Decreased Susceptibility to Noise-Induced Temporary Hearing Losses.

Simmons A, Simmons J J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2024; 25(3):229-238.

PMID: 38565735 PMC: 11150213. DOI: 10.1007/s10162-024-00941-6.


Analysis of echolocation behavior of bats in "echo space" using acoustic simulation.

Teshima Y, Yamada Y, Tsuchiya T, Heim O, Hiryu S BMC Biol. 2022; 20(1):59.

PMID: 35282831 PMC: 8919609. DOI: 10.1186/s12915-022-01253-y.


A comprehensive computational model of animal biosonar signal processing.

Ming C, Haro S, Simmons A, Simmons J PLoS Comput Biol. 2021; 17(2):e1008677.

PMID: 33596199 PMC: 7888678. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008677.

References
1.
Mora E, MACIAS S, Vater M, Coro F, Kossl M . Specializations for aerial hawking in the echolocation system of Molossus molossus (Molossidae, Chiroptera). J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2004; 190(7):561-74. DOI: 10.1007/s00359-004-0519-2. View

2.
Ming C, Gupta A, Lu R, Zhu H, Muller R . A computational model for biosonar echoes from foliage. PLoS One. 2017; 12(8):e0182824. PMC: 5560571. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182824. View

3.
Melcon M, Yovel Y, Denzinger A, Schnitzler H . How greater mouse-eared bats deal with ambiguous echoic scenes. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2010; 197(5):505-14. PMC: 3079090. DOI: 10.1007/s00359-010-0563-z. View

4.
Muller R, Kuc R . Foliage echoes: a probe into the ecological acoustics of bat echolocation. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000; 108(2):836-45. DOI: 10.1121/1.429617. View

5.
Matsuo I, Kunugiyama K, Yano M . An echolocation model for range discrimination of multiple closely spaced objects: transformation of spectrogram into the reflected intensity distribution. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004; 115(2):920-8. DOI: 10.1121/1.1642626. View