Echolocation: The brain limit

How fast the brain and muscles can respond to information about prey location constrains visual and echolocating predators in similar ways.
  1. Alexander J Werth  Is a corresponding author
  2. Joseph E Corbett
  1. Department of Biology, Hampden-Sydney College, United States

A small fish, darting about in the sea: tonight’s dinner for a savvy predator. If you, the reader, were the predator, you would only have your hands, teeth, and brain to catch the slippery creature that will respond to your approach with agile, evasive twists and turns (Moore and Biewener, 2015). Your eyes would track the fish through rapid, jerky movements that lock on to its new position 100–250 milliseconds after it has moved: this is the length of time it takes for your nervous system to process the information, and for your body’s muscles to respond (Erkelens, 2006).

Now imagine doing this in the dark, murky depths of the ocean – a challenging hunting ground for any optokinetic predator (that is, an animal that relies on its visual system to catch its prey). Toothed whales, such as dolphins and porpoises, have solved this quandary by evolving an echolocation system. Like bats, they emit a series of sonic clicks and then listen and analyze the echoes that bounce off the objects around them, including nearby meals. When the whales switch from slowly stalking to actively pursuing prey, they rapidly increase their click rate to get more information about their target’s location, creating a rapid train of sounds called a buzz (Madsen and Surlykke, 2013).

Until now, the echolocation of toothed whales was presumed to work on a synchronous ‘click-by-click’ basis, like human sonar systems: a new click would be produced as soon as the previous one had been received and processed (Au, 1993). However, given tooth whales’ rapid buzz rates, the animals would need to process information and respond to it 100 times faster than optokinetic predators (Kirchner and Thorpe, 2006). Is this the case, or do whales rely on a different strategy? Now, in eLife, Heather Vance from the University of St Andrews and colleagues based in the United Kingdom, Denmark, Spain and France report a new approach that sheds light on how toothed whales keep up with this rapid train of stimuli (Vance et al., 2021).

The team used suction cups to temporarily attach small electronic tags onto free-ranging beaked whales and harbor porpoises. The sensors recorded outgoing sonar clicks and returned echoes, as well as fine-scale data on the animals’ movement (such as their direction, speed and acceleration; Johnson and Tyack, 2003). Vance et al. then used this data to determine how close the predators were to their prey, how rapidly they sent and received clicks, and how they moved in response.

Results from the tags revealed that during the final moments of a pursuit, clicks are just two to three milliseconds apart – indicating that these rapid buzzes contain the equivalent of 500 clicks per second. Yet, it took the whales 100–200 milliseconds to physically respond to the echo, which is comparable to the delayed response time of optokinetic predators (Erkelens, 2006; Kirchner and Thorpe, 2006; Engbert et al., 2011). Experiments with captive harbor porpoises trained to respond to randomly moving target balls confirmed these findings. Overall, beaked whales’ reaction times were slightly longer than those of the smaller porpoises – suggesting that larger bodies respond more slowly. Nonetheless, both species shared strikingly similar response times given that they have evolved independently for the past 20 million years (Berta et al., 2014).

Overall, if whales processed sensory data on a click-by-click basis (as originally supposed), they would show much faster reaction times. These findings therefore refute the original ‘click-by-click’ claim whereby echolocators would wait to respond to an echo before releasing a new click. Instead, they suggest that both these ‘echokinetic’ animals (as named by Vance et al.) and optokinetic predators share a common neural mechanism that evolved in an earlier common ancestor – but when and in which species remains a mystery. In both groups, hunting responses are limited by the speed at which the brain can process information, and the muscles can respond (Figure 1). So, why do toothed whales produce clicks 100 times faster than they can process and respond to them?

Comparing the response times of echolocating and visual predators.

(Left) Toothed whales (such as dolphins and porpoises) are echokinetic predators that track prey by emitting sonar pings, or clicks, which they release faster as they get closer to their target: they then process the sensory information from the returning echo and move their bodies accordingly to hunt down the prey. (Right) Optokinetic predators (such as wolves) rely on their vision to hunt, rapidly moving their eyes to lock on to the prey’s position and track where it goes. Vance et al. found that echokinetic predators respond to the sensory input from the echo and coordinate their bodily motion at the same speeds that optokinetic predators use to track prey with eye movements. This suggests that the tracking abilities of both types of predators are limited by how fast their brains process sensory information and how quickly their muscles contract; it also indicates a shared evolutionary origin for the neuromuscular system that may underlie hunting in mammals.

Image credit: Alexander J Werth and Joseph E Corbett.

The answer likely lies in the fact that clicks are produced by the rapid vibration of nasal valves (or ‘phonic lips’) as air passes through them – similar to the squeaky sounds that emerge from air escaping from a balloon (Berta et al., 2014). How fast the clicks are created depends on the tension of the phonic lips and air pressure; it is likely that this anatomical process is not as finely controlled as the contraction of muscles involved in swimming and chasing prey. However, this creates a sensor equivalent to the fovea, an eye region densely packed with light-sensitive nerve cells that provides the sharpest vision. The densely packed (timewise) buzz of rapid clicks may create an equally sensitive ‘echolocatory fovea’ that allows the predator to integrate multiple echoes caused by the prey’s movements.

Toothed whales are not the only predators in the sea, and not all of them can perform echolocation. For example, seals use the whiskers on their snouts and surrounding their large eyes to sense the tiny water vibrations produced by moving prey (Dehnhardt et al., 1998). Yet, whether mammals use their eyes, whiskers or sonic pings, the results by Vance et al. suggest that they may all rely on roughly the same neurological processes to catch their dinner.

References

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Alexander J Werth

    Alexander J Werth is in the Department of Biology, Hampden-Sydney College, Hampden-Sydney, United States

    For correspondence
    awerth@hsc.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7777-478X
  2. Joseph E Corbett

    Joseph E Corbett is in the Department of Biology, Hampden-Sydney College, Hampden-Sydney, United States

    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared

Publication history

  1. Version of Record published: November 5, 2021 (version 1)

Copyright

© 2021, Werth and Corbett

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 432
    Page views
  • 43
    Downloads
  • 0
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Alexander J Werth
  2. Joseph E Corbett
(2021)
Echolocation: The brain limit
eLife 10:e74096.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.74096

Further reading

    1. Ecology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Nicholas Grebe, Jean Paul Hirwa ... Stacy Rosenbaum
    Research Article

    Evolutionary theories predict that sibling relationships will reflect a complex balance of cooperative and competitive dynamics. In most mammals, dispersal and death patterns mean that sibling relationships occur in a relatively narrow window during development, and/or only with same-sex individuals. Besides humans, one notable exception are mountain gorillas, in which non-sex biased dispersal, relatively stable group composition, and the long reproductive tenures of alpha males mean that animals routinely reside with both maternally and paternally related siblings, of the same and opposite sex, throughout their lives. Using nearly 40,000 hours of behavioral data collected over 14 years on 699 sibling and 1235 non-sibling pairs of wild mountain gorillas, we demonstrate that individuals have strong affiliative preferences for full and maternal siblings over paternal siblings or unrelated animals, consistent with an inability to discriminate paternal kin. Intriguingly, however, aggression data imply the opposite. Aggression rates were statistically indistinguishable among all types of dyads except one: in mixed-sex dyads, non-siblings engaged in substantially more aggression than siblings of any type. This pattern suggests mountain gorillas may be capable of distinguishing paternal kin, but nonetheless choose not to affiliate with them over non-kin. We observe a preference for maternal kin in a species with high reproductive skew (i.e., high relatedness certainty), even though low reproductive skew (i.e., low relatedness certainty) is believed to underlie such biases in other non-human primates. Our results call into question reasons for strong maternal kin biases when paternal kin are identifiable, familiar, and similarly likely to be long-term groupmates, and they may also suggest behavioral mismatches at play during a transitional period in mountain gorilla society.

    1. Ecology
    Ines Braga Goncalves, Andrew N Radford
    Research Article

    Conflicts with conspecific outsiders are common in group-living species, from ants to primates, and are argued to be an important selective force in social evolution. However, whilst an extensive empirical literature exists on the behaviour exhibited during and immediately after interactions with rivals, only very few observational studies have considered the cumulative fitness consequences of outgroup conflict. Using a cooperatively breeding fish, the daffodil cichlid (Neolamprologus pulcher), we conducted the first experimental test of the effects of chronic outgroup conflict on reproductive investment and output. ‘Intruded’ groups received long-term simulated territorial intrusions by neighbours that generated consistent group-defence behaviour; matched ‘Control’ groups (each the same size and with the same neighbours as an Intruded group) received no intrusions in the same period. Intruded groups had longer inter-clutch intervals and produced eggs with increasingly less protein than Control groups. Despite the lower egg investment, Intruded groups provided more parental care and achieved similar hatching success to Control groups. Ultimately, however, Intruded groups had fewer and smaller surviving offspring than Control groups at 1-month post-hatching. We therefore provide experimental evidence that outgroup conflict can decrease fitness via cumulative effects on reproductive success, confirming the selective potential of this empirically neglected aspect of sociality.