↓ Skip to main content

The noseleaf of Rhinolophus formosae focuses the Frequency Modulated (FM) component of the calls

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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
The noseleaf of Rhinolophus formosae focuses the Frequency Modulated (FM) component of the calls
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2013.00191
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dieter Vanderelst, Ya-Fu Lee, Inga Geipel, Elisabeth K. V. Kalko, Yen-Min Kuo, Herbert Peremans

Abstract

Bats of the family Rhinolophidae emit their echolocation calls through their nostrils and feature elaborate noseleaves shaping the directionality of the emissions. The calls of these bats consist of a long constant-frequency component preceded and/or followed by short frequency-modulated sweeps. While Rhinolophidae are known for their physiological specializations for processing the constant frequency part of the calls, previous evidence suggests that the noseleaves of these animals are tuned to the frequencies in the frequency modulated components of the calls. In this paper, we seek further support for this hypothesis by simulating the emission beam pattern of the bat Rhinolophus formosae. Filling the furrows of lancet and removing the basal lappets (i.e., two flaps on the noseleaf) we find that these conspicuous features of the noseleaf focus the emitted energy mostly for frequencies in the frequency-modulated components. Based on the assumption that this component of the call is used by the bats for ranging, we develop a qualitative model to assess the increase in performance due to the furrows and/or the lappets. The model confirms that both structures decrease the ambiguity in selecting relevant targets for ranging. The lappets and the furrows shape the emission beam for different spatial regions and frequency ranges. Therefore, we conclude that the presented evidence is in line with the hypothesis that different parts of the noseleaves of Rhinolophidae are tuned to different frequency ranges with at least some of the most conspicuous ones being tuned to the frequency modulated components of the calls-thus yielding strong evidence for the sensory importance of the component.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 3%
Australia 1 3%
Unknown 31 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 21%
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 5 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 48%
Engineering 4 12%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Linguistics 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 6 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 18 September 2021.
All research outputs
#2,234,565
of 22,714,025 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#1,219
of 13,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,461
of 280,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#37
of 398 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,714,025 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 280,752 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 91% 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.