↓ Skip to main content

Flexible echolocation behavior of trawling bats during approach of continuous or transient prey cues

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Flexible echolocation behavior of trawling bats during approach of continuous or transient prey cues
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2013.00096
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kirstin Übernickel, Marco Tschapka, Elisabeth K. V. Kalko

Abstract

Trawling bats use echolocation not only to detect and classify acoustically continuous cues originated from insects at and above water surfaces, but also to detect small water-dwelling prey items breaking the water surface for a very short time, producing only transient cues to be perceived acoustically. Generally, bats need to adjust their echolocation behavior to the specific task on hand, and because of the diversity of prey cues they use in hunting, trawling bats should be highly flexible in their echolocation behavior. We studied the adaptations in the behavior of Noctilio leporinus when approaching either a continuous cue or a transient cue that disappeared during the approach of the bat. Normally the bats reacted by dipping their feet in the water at the cue location. We found that the bats typically started to adapt their calling behavior at approximately 410 ms before prey contact in continuous cue trials, but were also able to adapt their approach behavior to stimuli onsets as short as 177 ms before contact, within a minimum reaction time of 50.9 ms in response to transient cues. In both tasks the approach phase ended between 32 and 53 ms before prey contact. Call emission always continued after the end of the approach phase until around prey contact. In some failed capture attempts, call emission did not cease at all after prey contact. Probably bats used spatial memory to dip at the original location of the transient cue after its disappearance. The duration of the pointed dips was significantly longer in transient cue trials than in continuous cue trials. Our results suggest that trawling bats possess the ability to modify their generally rather stereotyped echolocation behavior during approaches within very short reaction times depending on the sensory information available.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 45 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 20%
Student > Master 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 6 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 66%
Environmental Science 3 6%
Psychology 2 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 7 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 May 2013.
All research outputs
#2,591,041
of 22,710,079 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#1,370
of 13,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,384
of 280,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#47
of 398 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,710,079 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,524 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,729 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 398 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.