Figure - uploaded by Kun Guo
Content may be subject to copyright.
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... length of the cochlear basilar membrane is widely thought to be critical in determining the extent of the hearing frequency range, although an earlier report by West (1985) claims that the cochlear length is not correlated with frequency range detection. Longer basilar membranes, such as those that occur in dogs relative to humans (Table 1), are believed to be able to detect a wider range of frequencies Heffner & Heffner, 1998, 2008, and this is consistent with the data summarized in Table 2. An audiogram of the hearing frequency range of an animal should include the absolute upper and lower thresholds for frequencies and their sensitivity throughout their hearing range. ...Context 2
... audiogram of the hearing frequency range of an animal should include the absolute upper and lower thresholds for frequencies and their sensitivity throughout their hearing range. Audiograms are commonly recorded at a sound pressure level of 60 dB (SPL) but, depending on the study question, deviations from this do occur (Table 2). Typically, the human hearing range is reported to be between 20 and 20000 Hz and that of dogs between 65 and 45000 Hz, but as the amplitude (loudness) increases, so the hearing range widens. ...Context 3
... length of the cochlear basilar membrane is widely thought to be critical in determining the extent of the hearing frequency range, although an earlier report by West (1985) claims that the cochlear length is not correlated with frequency range detection. Longer basilar membranes, such as those that occur in dogs relative to humans (Table 1), are believed to be able to detect a wider range of frequencies Heffner & Heffner, 1998, 2008, and this is consistent with the data summarized in Table 2. An audiogram of the hearing frequency range of an animal should include the absolute upper and lower thresholds for frequencies and their sensitivity throughout their hearing range. ...Context 4
... audiogram of the hearing frequency range of an animal should include the absolute upper and lower thresholds for frequencies and their sensitivity throughout their hearing range. Audiograms are commonly recorded at a sound pressure level of 60 dB (SPL) but, depending on the study question, deviations from this do occur (Table 2). Typically, the human hearing range is reported to be between 20 and 20000 Hz and that of dogs between 65 and 45000 Hz, but as the amplitude (loudness) increases, so the hearing range widens. ...Similar publications
Citations
... Some dogs respond with an apparent hypersensitivity to sound although brainstem auditory evoked responses are normal. Few studies have analysed how sound is processed in the brain of dogs that respond negatively to sounds (Barber et al., 2020) and the causes are not well understood. Peripheral auditory or central nervous system disorders are possible causes, and negative reactions to noises in dogs are often associated with other conditions, such as separation anxiety and noise phobia (Overall et al., 2001;Dinwoodie et al., 2019;Salonen et al., 2020). ...
... It is clear further research is needed into the range and severity of reactions of dogs to a wide range of sounds. Dogs reacted significantly more toward AS and ES compared to HS. Thunderstorms and fireworks register at a sound level of 120 dB and 150 dB respectively, while environmental stimuli such as motor vehicles, alarm clocks and vacuum cleaners register at 90 dB, 80 dB and 70 dB, respectively (Barber et al., 2020). Although the intensities of AS are higher than ES, the closer proximity of environmental stimuli and their greater frequency in homes may increase negative reactions to them. ...
... Similarly, the human auditory system is sensitive only to vibratory frequencies ranging from 20 to 20,000 Hz (Ehret & Göpfert, 2013). This means ultrasonic and infrasonic sounds are undetectable by the human ear, whereas other species, such as dogs, can hear sounds up to 45,000 Hz, and bats can detect vibrations up to 100,000 Hz (Barber et al., 2020;Strain, 2011). Finally, the human olfactory system is much poorer in sensitivity than many other mammals, including dogs and elephants, as it is capable of detecting and discriminating far fewer distinct molecules (Laska & Salazar, 2015;Von Dürckheim, 2021). ...
... Because dogs have been selectively bred over thousands of years to work cooperatively with humans [7], there is tendency to assume that the stimuli that distract/disorient us are the same as those that will impair task performance in dogs. Yet, many functional differences in the visual and auditory systems of humans and dogs exist [8,9]. To maximise working dogs' performance in dynamic and unpredictable working environments, it is necessary to gain a solid understanding of how 'real-world' changes in light and sound impact the accuracy, efficiency, and repeatability of dogs' task performance. ...
... In addition to differences in the ways in which dogs and humans perceive light, marked anatomical and physiological differences related to hearing that are likely to produce differences in perception. For example, the outer ear of a dog can amplify sounds to a greater level than humans' (although there is more variation in dogs owing to their diverse ear shapes [9]), and many dogs are also able to hear sounds that are higher in pitch than humans (including ultrasound), but not those lower in pitch [20]. In animals from a range of taxa, exposure to sudden loud noises can result in an acoustic distractor response; a series of reflexive muscular contractions produced in response to acoustic stimuli, including blinking and postural tension, and a cortisol response [21]. ...
... Our sample size was not large enough to explore how differences in the anatomical features of dogs may have affected their responses; for example, it would be useful to useful whether prick eared dogs (characteristic of police dogs) are more sensitive to acoustic distraction than lop eared dogs. Interestingly many gun-dog breeds have lopped ears and more often hairy ear canals that might serve as a form of auditory baffle [9]. This is an important avenue for future work. ...
Sudden changes in sound and light (e.g., sirens and flashing police beacons) are a common component of working dogs’ on-duty environment. Yet, how such stimuli impact dogs’ ability to perform physical and cognitive tasks has not been explored. To address this shortcoming, we compared the accuracy and time taken for twelve dogs to complete a complex physical and cognitive task, before, during and after exposure to three ‘real-world’ stimuli: an acoustic distractor (85dB), white strobe lighting (5, 10 & 15 Hz), and exposure to a dazzling white, red, or blue lights. We found that strobe lighting, and to a greater extent, acoustic distraction, significantly reduced dogs’ physical performance. Acoustic distraction also tended to impair dogs’ cognitive performance. Dazzling lights had no effect on task performance. Most (nine out of twelve) dogs sensitised to the acoustic distraction to the extent of non-participation in the rewarded task. Our results suggest that without effective distractor response training, sudden changes in noise and flickering lights are likely to impede cognitive and physical task performance in working dogs. Repeated uncontrolled exposure may also amplify these effects.
... Studies in the third-and smallest-category are about the behavioral, non-physiological estimates of the hearing status (i.e., normal versus impaired) of dogs (see [36] for details) using physiological and behavioral audiometric methods in animals; see [37] for a comparative review of research on dog and human hearing. In past academic and clinical behavioral studies on the hearing status of dogs and cats, a few environmental sounds among the following were either directly produced or played back: hand clap, finger snap, dog vocalizations (bark, cry, yap, and whine), human pronouncing the dog's name out loud, training clicker, squeaky toy, ceramic plate breaking, doorbell, whistling, vehicle siren, metal object shook or dropped on floor, and vacuum cleaner [38][39][40]. ...
Simple Summary
We proposed a descriptive model of the dog soundscape composed of 79 sounds classified into six categories. In a survey, 620 dog owners scored the recurrence of each sound, from never to daily, in their dog’s environment. The survey also revealed 25 sounds that are likely to elicit stress/fear, that is, negative emotional sensitivity, in dogs. The results indicate no beneficial effect of commonness and no deleterious effect of scarcity regarding sound events on sensitivity. For the sake of dog welfare, researchers, veterinarians, trainers, and owners may limit dogs’ exposure to the sensitive sounds identified in this study during their dog observations and dog–human interactions. A corpus of 84 sounds was spectrally analyzed. At the lowest sound frequencies, where canine hearing is poorest, negative emotional sensitivity was generally low. At the middle and high sound frequencies, sensitivity greatly varied across the sounds, which is incompatible with the general assumption. How emotional sensitivity relates to pitch and dog hearing sensitivity remains undetermined. We suggest that future behavioral audiometric studies may maximize the spectral spread of each sound while minimizing the spectral overlap between sounds to reduce both the testing duration and the risk of unintentionally targeting or missing frequency-dependent hearing impairments.
Abstract
While numerous dog behavioral studies use environmental sounds, the dog soundscape remains undescribed. We proposed a list of 79 sounds classified into six categories: Dog, Dog accessories, Human, city and vehicles, Garden, countryside and weather, and Household. In a survey, 620 dog owners scored the frequency of their dog’s exposure to, and thus, the recurrence of, each of the 79 sounds, from never to daily. The survey results also extended to about 25 sounds the number of acknowledged sounds that are likely to elicit stress or fear, that is, negative emotional sensitivity, in dogs. Sound recurrence and emotional sensitivity were not correlated, showing no beneficial effect of frequent exposure to, and no deleterious effect of scarcity of, sound events. We suggest that for the sake of dog welfare, researchers, veterinarians, trainers, and owners may limit dogs’ exposure to the sensitive sounds identified in the study during their dog observations and dog–human interactions. A corpus of 84 sounds was collected. The sounds were spectrally analyzed by determining their F0 and 10 dB bandwidth parameters. At the lowest sound frequencies, where canine hearing is poorest, negative emotional sensitivity was generally low. At the middle and high sound center frequencies/F0s, sensitivity greatly varied from lowest to highest, which is incompatible with both the general assumption and dog auditory detection thresholds. How emotional sensitivity relates to F0 (pitch) and hearing sensitivity remains undetermined. Finally, we suggest that future behavioral audiometric studies of dogs may maximize the spectral spread of each sound while minimizing the spectral overlap between sounds so as to reduce both the testing duration and the risk of inadvertently targeting or, conversely, missing frequency-dependent hearing impairments.
... La sensibilità dei cani al suono è maggiore rispetto a quella dell'uomo a frequenze superiori ai 4000-8000 Hz; la soglia di udibilità risulta essere normalmente di 0 dB (livello di pressione sonora [SPL]) a 2 kHz per l'uomo e 0 dB (SPL) tra 1000 Hz e 16000 Hz per i cani, a seconda della loro taglia [3]. ...
Objective
To investigate the prevalence of firework‐associated fear in dogs in Sydney, owner perception of their dog's response to fireworks, perceived efficacy of interventions to manage fearful behaviours and the frequency of dog owners seeking professional advice for these behaviours.
Methods
Dog owners in the Greater Sydney area were invited to complete an anonymous online survey.
Results
From 387 valid responses, 44.4% (171 of 385) reported their dogs were fearful of fireworks. The most common fear‐related behaviour was seeking an owner or caretaker (120 of 161, 74.5%). Most owners responded by bringing their dog inside or trying to comfort or reassure their dog. Only 22.5% of owners sought professional advice for their dog's fear of fireworks, but of these, 65.5% considered that advice to be effective. Source and breed group were significantly associated with fear of fireworks (P = 0.011, P = 0.036 respectively). Fear of fireworks was also significantly associated with fear of thunder (P < 0.0001), gunshots (P < 0.0001) and vehicles (P = 0.0009).
Conclusion
Fear of fireworks and other loud noises negatively impacts canine welfare, yet only a small percentage of owners sought professional advice. There is scope for veterinarians to educate owners and raise awareness about the identification and management of noise‐associated fear and reduce the risk of escalation of fearful behaviours.
Both enhanced discrimination of low-level features of auditory stimuli and mutations of SHANK3 (a gene that encodes a synaptic scaffolding protein) have been identified in autism spectrum disorder patients. However, experimental evidence regarding whether SHANK3 mutations lead to enhanced neural processing of low-level features of auditory stimuli is lacking. The present study investigated this possibility by examining effects of Shank3 mutations on early neural processing of pitch (tone frequency) in dogs. We recorded electrocorticograms from wild-type and Shank3 mutant dogs using an oddball paradigm in which deviant tones of different frequencies or probabilities were presented along with other tones in a repetitive stream (standards). We found that, relative to wild-type dogs, Shank3 mutant dogs exhibited larger amplitudes of early neural responses to deviant tones and greater sensitivity to variations of deviant frequencies within 100 ms after tone onsets. In addition, the enhanced early neural responses to deviant tones in Shank3 mutant dogs were observed independently of the probability of deviant tones. Our findings highlight an essential functional role of Shank3 in modulations of early neural detection of novel sounds and offer new insights into the genetic basis of the atypical auditory information processing in autism patients.
