Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A Mosquito-Inspired Theoretical Framework for Acoustic Signal Detection

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A Hopf-oscillator detector tuned to a distortion product instead of the primary tone achieves sharply enhanced frequency selectivity, and cascading such amplifiers adds weak-signal sensitivity and compression, so the combined scheme…

desk verdict A clean, internally consistent Hopf-oscillator analysis of distortion-product-tuned ears; the model-level gains are real, but the 'noisy swarm' headline claim needs a noise floor before it holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05576 v1 pith:RH7RQVS7 submitted 2025-01-09 physics.bio-ph

Justin Faber , Alexandros C Alampounti , Marcos Georgiades , Joerg T Albert , Dolores Bozovic This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-ph
keywords mosquitohearingdistortionproductsHopfoscillatorfrequencyselectivitysignalcascadingactiveauditoryamplificationtwo-toneinterferencequalityfactor
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that an acoustic detector can sharpen its frequency selectivity by locking onto a distortion product—a combination tone generated by nonlinearity—rather than the primary tone itself. Working with the normal form of the Hopf oscillator, it derives the quality-factor ratio $Q_{\mathrm{DP}}/Q_{\mathrm{PT}} = (\omega_m - \omega_f)^2 / (\tfrac{1}{2} F_f F_m)^{2/3}$ and shows the advantage grows without bound for weak stimuli. It then shows that cascading several oscillator stages—feeding the response of one into the next—enhances weak-signal sensitivity, compresses large signals, and narrows the response band. When both schemes are combined into a two-oscillator model of the male mosquito's flagellum and antennal sensory neurons, the composite detector outperforms either stage alone on all three metrics. If the model is right, it identifies a general design principle: active nonlinear detectors can profit from being tuned away from the stimulus frequency.

What carries the argument

The central object is the normal form equation for the supercritical Hopf bifurcation, $dz/dt = (\mu + i\omega_0)z - |z|^2z + \mathrm{forcing}$, a canonical equation for an oscillator that begins to self-oscillate when the control parameter $\mu$ crosses zero. The cubic term generates odd-order distortion products with amplitudes that fall off with order, and the identity $d\omega_{p,q}/d\omega_1 = p$ means frequency modulations of a primary tone are magnified at the distortion-product frequency. For distortion-product tuning, inserting a two-tone ansatz yields an effective equation of the same form with $F_{\mathrm{eff}} = R_f^2 R_m$ and $\mu_{\mathrm{eff}} = \mu - 2(R_f^2 + R_m^2)$, which explains the quadratic growth of weak responses and produces the quality-factor formula. For cascading, each subsequent stage $z_j$ is forced by the previous stage $z_{j-1}$, which accumulates a response exponent $(1/3)^j$ at high amplitudes. Together these two mechanisms carry the argument.

What would settle it

Add noise of realistic amplitude to Eqs. (1), (6), and (7) and measure the phase-locked response at $2\omega_f - \omega_m$: if intrinsic oscillator fluctuations or swarm noise wash out the sharpened tuning curve and the $Q_{\mathrm{DP}}/Q_{\mathrm{PT}}$ scaling of Eq. (21), the predicted detection advantage does not survive. A complementary experiment would record Johnston's organ neuron responses to two-tone stimuli and test whether neural tuning width narrows roughly as $F_f^{-2/3}$ as the female-tone amplitude drops.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claim is that tuning a Hopf-oscillator detector to a cubic distortion product of a two-tone stimulus, such as $2\omega_f - \omega_m$, converts the detector's response from the familiar compressive growth of primary-tone detection into a regime with quadratic growth at weak inputs, strong compression at large inputs, and a quality factor that grows with distortion-product order. The analytic approximation gives $Q_{\mathrm{DP}}/Q_{\mathrm{PT}} = (\omega_m - \omega_f)^2 / (\tfrac{1}{2} F_f F_m)^{2/3}$, so the selectivity gain diverges as the product of the stimulus amplitudes goes to zero. Cascading the output of one Hopf oscillator into another changes the high-amplitude response growth from $F^{1/3}$ to $F^{(1/3)^j}$, flattening the response and steepening the near-resonance window. The concrete combined model—a first oscillator representing the flagellum driven by female and male wingbeat tones, and a second oscillator tuned to $2\omega_0 - \omega_m$ and driven by the flagellum's response—achieves better sensitivity, compression, and frequency selectivity than either oscillator alone. This is offered as a general principle for active acoustic detection, inspired by and consistent with the observed mosquito ear configuration.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that detection performance can be judged from deterministic phase-locked responses without including noise; the model equations have no stochastic term, even though the motivating task is finding a female in a noisy swarm.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A detector tuned to a distortion product instead of the primary tone gains a frequency-selectivity advantage that grows as the stimulus amplitude weakens, rather than vanishing with it.
  • Cascading $n$ oscillators turns the large-amplitude response growth into $F^{(1/3)^n}$, so the response flattens to near-constant and the dynamic range widens.
  • The two-oscillator flagellum-plus-neuron configuration is better at weak-signal sensitivity, strong-signal compression, and frequency selectivity than either of its components alone.
  • The benefits are robust to imprecise tuning of the control parameters $\mu_j$, since they persist with Gaussian spread around the bifurcation point.
  • Most of the cascade's gain arrives in the first few stages, with diminishing returns for additional layers.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the model omits noise, the divergence of the quality-factor ratio as $F_f F_m \to 0$ will in reality be cut off at the noise floor; the practically achievable selectivity gain is the ratio at the amplitude where the distortion product equals the noise level.
  • The same mechanism could be tested in other flagellar insects with active auditory mechanics, since only the normal-form nonlinearity and a two-tone stimulus are required.
  • The non-monotonic response amplitude of a single distortion-product detector leaves an input-level ambiguity; the paper mentions arrays of detectors as a fix, and a natural extension is to ask how population coding across multiple distortion-product orders resolves the ambiguity.
  • The control parameter $\mu$ is identified as a plausible target of efferent neuromodulation; if that link is real, the ear could dynamically switch between primary-tone and distortion-product detection regimes, an idea the paper leaves implicit.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a generic model of mosquito auditory detection based on Hopf oscillators, with two main ingredients: (i) tuning a detector to a distortion product (e.g., 2ω_f − ω_m) rather than to the primary tone, and (ii) cascading the response of one oscillator into a second oscillator. Using deterministic simulations and analytic approximations, the authors find that distortion-product-tuned detectors exhibit greatly increased quality factors (Eq. 20–21), that cascades improve weak-signal amplification, compression, and frequency selectivity (Fig. 3), and that a two-oscillator model combining both features outperforms either oscillator alone on all three metrics (Fig. 4). The work is motivated by experimental observations that mosquito auditory neurons are tuned to distortion products rather than to the female wingbeat frequency.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper identifies a plausible general design principle for nonlinear auditory detection: distortion-product tuning sharpens frequency selectivity, and cascading active elements boosts weak-signal sensitivity. The analytic results, especially Eq. (21), are parameter-free in the sense that no fitted parameters are introduced; the enhancement is a direct consequence of the Hopf nonlinearity. The model is simple, reproducible, and makes explicit predictions (e.g., increasing quality factor with decreasing stimulus amplitude and with distortion-product order) that could be tested experimentally. A notable strength is the transparent appendix derivation of the single-tone quality factor and the effective forcing for the distortion-product response. However, the significance is limited by the complete absence of noise in the model, despite the stated motivation of detection in a noisy swarm environment; all reported measures are deterministic quantities, so the claimed detection advantages are not yet tied to signal-to-noise ratios or detection thresholds.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Discussion; Eqs. (1), (7), (19), (21)] The central claim of improved signal detection is not supported by a noise analysis. All reported metrics — response amplitude, linear response function χ, and quality factor — are computed from the deterministic equations (1), (4)–(7), which contain no stochastic term. Yet the abstract and Discussion motivate the work as enabling detection "within a noisy swarm environment." This matters because the distortion-product response amplitude grows as roughly Ff^2 (Eq. 19), while the claimed quality-factor enhancement diverges as (Ff Fm)^{-2/3} (Eq. 21); as the forcing tends to zero, the response and the quality factor move in opposite directions. In any physical detector a noise floor sets a minimum detectable phase-locked amplitude, and once the response falls below that floor the divergent Q is not a usable detection advantage. Please either add a noise analysis (e.g., additive or oscillator-intrinsic noise) demonstrating that the enhancement survives when operating above threshold, or explicitly restrict the claims to the noiseless limit and revise the motivating statements accordingly.
  2. [Appendix, Eqs. (20)–(21)] The derivation of Eq. (21) is not sufficiently transparent regarding the definition of QDP and its conversion to the female-stimulus-frequency domain. The text states that a factor of 2 gained from the derivative dδω/dωf = 2 cancels a factor of 2 lost from the detector being tuned to half the primary-tone frequency, but this cancellation is not immediate: the center of the tuning curve in terms of ωf is (ω0 + ωm)/2, not simply ω0, so the effective quality factor with respect to ωf may differ from QDP by a factor that depends on ωm/ω0. Please provide a step-by-step derivation of Eq. (21), including the precise definitions of QPT and QDP and the explicit conversion from δω to ωf, so that the quantitative claim can be verified.
  3. [Results, Fig. 4] The comparison in Fig. 4 may not isolate the effect of cascading. In the composite model the second oscillator receives the full nonlinear output z1(t) of the first oscillator, which contains primary tones, harmonics, and distortion products generated by the first stage; the "second oscillator alone" baseline is presumably driven directly by the two-tone stimulus. These inputs differ not only in amplitude but also in spectral content. Please specify the exact driving conditions for the single-oscillator baselines, and ideally drive the baselines with a signal of the same spectral composition (e.g., the linear response of the first stage) so that the reported improvement can be attributed to the cascade rather than to differences in the input spectrum.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Page 1, Introduction] The text reads "chemicals such as DTT" — this should be "DDT."
  2. [Results, page 5 and Discussion, page 7] The Results state that cascading enhances frequency selectivity, while the Discussion says cascading "negligibly affect[s] the quality factor." If these refer to different metrics (e.g., half-maximum width versus tail suppression), please define both explicitly to avoid the appearance of contradiction.
  3. [Page 3, Eq. (2)] The statement that distortion products lower than ω1 can be represented as ω_{p,q} = ω1 − (1/2)(|p|+|q|−1)Δω holds only for the branch p = q+1 (e.g., 2ω1−ω2, 3ω1−2ω2), not for all p and q. Please clarify the restriction.
  4. [Fig. 2 caption] Please list the full parameter set for each panel in the caption; currently panel (D) uses F1 = F2 = 0.1 while panels (A) and (B) use F2 = 5, which is easy to miss.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the selectivity and cascade results are analytic/numerical consequences of the generic Hopf model, and the empirical inputs (mosquito DP tuning, frequency ratio) are external measurements, not fitted outputs.

full rationale

This paper's central results are derived, not fitted. The QDP/QPT ratio (Eq. 21) follows by direct analytic solution of the same Hopf normal-form equation (Eq. 10) for two-tone forcing, with the primary-tone Q (Eq. 14) and distortion-product Q (Eq. 20) obtained from the same amplitude equation by the same expansion; no parameter is adjusted to enforce the enhancement. The cascade advantages are read off numerical solutions of Eqs. (4)-(5), with no fitted coefficients. The empirical premises—that mosquito sensory neurons are tuned to a distortion product and that ωm/ωf ≈ 1.5—are cited to prior experimental measurements ([17,21,23,31]), including papers with overlapping authors, but these are external observations that do not depend on the present model; they set parameter values rather than being produced by the theory. The absence of a noise term is a modeling limitation (the model is deterministic) and a possible correctness/validity concern, but it is not circularity: the predicted gains are computed within the stated model. There is no uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled in via self-citation, and no renamed fit.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No invented physical entities are introduced; the Hopf oscillators are modeling constructs, not new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. The free parameters are hand-chosen operating points, not fitted to target results, and the main input from experimental literature is the frequency ratio and the DP-tuned neuronal characteristic frequency.

free parameters (2)
  • Hopf control parameters μ1, μ2 = 0.1
    Chosen by hand to place the flagellar and neuronal oscillators in the self-oscillating regime; results are stated to be robust near the bifurcation, but no fitting to data is performed.
  • Cascade control parameters μj = sampled from Gaussian(mean 0, SD 0.1)
    Random draws used to test robustness; the distribution parameters are chosen, not fitted to any biological measurement.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The essential dynamics of each auditory component (flagellum, neuronal ensemble) are captured by the normal form of the supercritical Hopf bifurcation (Eq. 1).
    Invoked in Eqs. 1, 4-7; this is the standard hearing-model assumption from Refs. [19,20], not derived in the paper.
  • domain assumption Distortion-product amplitudes fall off exponentially with increasing order.
    Used to justify focusing on low-order DPs; cited to Ref. [29].
  • domain assumption The neuronal characteristic frequency matches the cubic distortion product 2ω_f − ω_m, and the frequency ratio ω_m/ω_f ≈ 1.5.
    Taken from prior experimental studies [17,21,23,31]; this is an input to the combined model, not a prediction of the model.
  • domain assumption Near-bifurcation and weak-forcing conditions hold, so the second-order expansion for the quality factor applies.
    The Appendix assumes |μ_eff| ≪ 1 and uses R_f ≈ F_f/Δω, R_m ≈ F_m/(2Δω); these parameter regimes are not verified against biological ranges.
  • domain assumption Detection performance can be assessed by deterministic phase-locked response and quality factor in the absence of noise.
    The model has no stochastic term; conclusions about detection in a 'noisy swarm environment' assume these deterministic measures are the relevant figures of merit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Mosquito-Inspired Theoretical Framework for Acoustic Signal Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RH7RQVS7

@misc{pith2026250105576,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Mosquito-Inspired Theoretical Framework for Acoustic Signal Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RH7RQVS7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05576}
}
read the original abstract

Distortion products are tones produced through nonlinear effects of a system simultaneously detecting two or more frequencies. These combination tones are ubiquitous to vertebrate auditory systems and are generally regarded as byproducts of nonlinear signal amplification. It has previously been shown that several species of infectious-disease-carrying mosquitoes utilize these distortion products for detecting and locating potential mates. It has also been shown that their auditory systems contain multiple oscillatory components within the sensory structure, which respond at different frequency ranges. Using a generic theoretical model for acoustic detection, we show the signal-detection advantages that are implied by these two detection schemes: distortion product detection and cascading a signal through multiple layers of oscillator elements. Lastly, we show that the combination of these two schemes yields immense benefits for signal detection. These benefits could be essential for male mosquitoes to be able to identify and pursue a particular female within a noisy swarm environment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05576 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Antennal-Based Strategies for Sound Localization by Insects

    physics.bio-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Higher-order nonlinear distortion products relax the Gabor-limit bound on detectable frequency modulation by a factor equal to the distortion-product order, a mechanism that could let mosquitoes perceive rapid wingbea...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    World Health Organization, Vector-borne diseases (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    J. P. Messina, O. J. Brady, D. M. Pigott, N. Golding, M. U. G. Kraemer, T. W. Scott, G. R. W. Wint, D. L. Smith, and S. I. Hay, The many projected futures of dengue, Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 13, 230 (2015)

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    World Health Organization, Global report on insecticide resistance in malaria vectors: 2010–2016 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Andr´ es, M

    M. Andr´ es, M. P. Su, J. Albert, and L. J. Cator, Buzzkill: Targeting the mosquito auditory system, Curr. Opin. In- sect Sci. 40, 11 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    M. P. Su, M. Georgiades, J. Bagi, K. Kyrou, A. Crisanti, and J. T. Albert, Assessing the acoustic behaviour of Anopheles gambiae (s.l.) dsxF mutants: implications for vector control, Parasites & Vectors 13, 507 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    J. T. Albert and A. S. Kozlov, Comparative Aspects of Hearing in Vertebrates and Insects with Antennal Ears, Curr. Biol. 26, R1050 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Warren and M

    B. Warren and M. Nowotny, Bridging the Gap Between Mammal and Insect Ears – A Comparative and Evolu- tionary View of Sound-Reception, Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 9, 1 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Martin and A

    P. Martin and A. J. Hudspeth, Compressive nonlinearity in the hair bundle’s active response to mechanical stim- ulation, PNAS 98, 14386 (2001)

    work page 2001

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    M. C. G¨ opfert, J. T. Albert, B. Nadrowski, and A. Kamikouchi, Specification of auditory sensitivity by drosophila trp channels, Nat. Neurosci. 9, 999 (2006)

    2006

  2. [10]

    M. C. G¨ opfert and R. M. Hennig, Hearing in Insects, Annual Review of Entomology 61, 257 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Nadrowski, T

    B. Nadrowski, T. Effertz, P. R. Senthilan, and M. C. G¨ opfert, Antennal hearing in insects - New findings, new questions, Hearing Research 273, 7 (2011), 20430076

    2011

  4. [12]

    Martin, a

    P. Martin, a. J. Hudspeth, and F. Julicher, Comparison of a hair bundle’s spontaneous oscillations with its response to mechanical stimulation reveals the underlying active process, PNAS 98, 14380 (2001)

    2001

  5. [13]

    Martin, D

    P. Martin, D. Bozovic, Y. Choe, and A. J. Hudspeth, Spontaneous oscillation by hair bundles of the bullfrog’s sacculus., J. Neurosci. 23, 4533 (2003)

    2003

  6. [14]

    Martin, A

    P. Martin, A. J. Hudspeth, P. Martin, and A. J. Hud- speth, Active hair-bundle movements can amplify a hair cell ’ s response to oscilla tory mechanical stimuli, PNAS 96, 14306 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    A. J. Hudspeth, Integrating the active process of hair cells with cochlear function, Nature Reviews Neuro- science 15, 600 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    M. C. G¨ opfert and D. Robert, Active auditory mechan- ics in mosquitoes, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 268, 333 (2001)

    2001

  9. [17]

    M. P. Su, M. Andr´ es, N. Boyd-Gibbins, J. Somers, and J. T. Albert, Sex and species specific hearing mech- anisms in mosquito flagellar ears, Nat. Commun. 9, 10.1038/s41467-018-06388-7 (2018), 30254270

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    M. C. G¨ opfert, A. D. Humphris, J. T. Albert, D. Robert, and O. Hendrich, Power gain exhibited by motile mechanosensory neurons in Drosophila ears, PNAS 102, 325 (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    Y. Choe, M. O. Magnasco, and A. J. Hudspeth, A model for amplification of hair-bundle motion by cyclical bind- ing of Ca2+ to mechanoelectrical-transduction channels, PNAS 95, 15321 (1998)

    1998

  12. [20]

    V. M. Egu ´ ıluz, M. Ospeck, Y. Choe, A. J. Hudspeth, and M. O. Magnasco, Essential Nonlinearities in Hearing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5232 (2000)

    2000

  13. [21]

    Warren, G

    B. Warren, G. Gibson, and I. J. Russell, Sex Recognition through Midflight Mating Duets in Culex Mosquitoes Is Mediated by Acoustic Distortion, Current Biology 19, 485 (2009), 19269180

    2009

  14. [22]

    singing on the wing

    C. Pennetier, B. Warren, K. R. Dabir´ e, I. J. Russell, and G. Gibson, “singing on the wing” as a mechanism for species recognition in the malarial mosquito anopheles gambiae, Curr. Biol. 20, 131 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    P. M. Sim˜ oes, R. Ingham, G. Gibson, and I. J. Rus- sell, Masking of an auditory behaviour reveals how male mosquitoes use distortion to detect females, Proceed- ings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 285, 11 (2018), 29367389

    2018

  16. [24]

    D. N. Lapshin and D. D. Vorontsov, Frequency tuning of individual auditory receptors in female mosquitoes (Diptera, Culicidae), Journal of Insect Physiology 59, 828 (2013), 23742968

    2013

  17. [25]

    D. N. Lapshin and D. D. Vorontsov, Frequency organiza- tion of the Johnston’s organ in male mosquitoes (Diptera, Culicidae), Journal of Experimental Biology 220, 3927 (2017), 28851820

    2017

  18. [26]

    Barral and P

    J. Barral and P. Martin, Phantom tones and suppressive masking by active nonlinear oscillation of the hair-cell bundle, PNAS 109, E1344

  19. [27]

    Robles, M

    L. Robles, M. A. Ruggero, and N. C. Rich, Two-tone distortion in the basilar membrane of the cochlea, Nature 349, 413 (1991), 1992342

    1991

  20. [28]

    E. M. Izhikevich, Dynamical Systems in Neuroscience (MIT Press, 2007)

    2007

  21. [29]

    J¨ ulicher, D

    F. J¨ ulicher, D. Andor, and T. Duke, Physical basis of two-tone interference in hearing, PNAS 98, 9080 (2001)

    2001

  22. [30]

    T. A. J. Duke and F. J¨ ulicher, Critical Oscillators as Active Elements in Hearing, Active processes and otoa- coustic emissions in hearing , 63 (2008)

    2008

  23. [31]

    Somers, M

    J. Somers, M. Georgiades, M. P. Su, J. Bagi, M. Andr´ es, A. Alampounti, G. Mills, W. Ntabaliba, S. J. Moore, R. Spaccapelo, and J. T. Albert, Hitting the right note at the right time: Circadian control of audibility in anophe- les mosquito mating swarms is mediated by flight ...

    2022

  24. [32]

    Avitabile, M

    D. Avitabile, M. Homer, A. R. Champneys, J. C. Jack- son, and D. Robert, Mathematical modelling of the active hearing process in mosquitoes, J. R. Soc. 7, 105 (2009). 9

    2009

  25. [33]

    A. R. Champneys, D. Avitabile, M. Homer, and R. Sza- lai, THE MECHANICS OF HEARING: A COMPARA- TIVE CASE STUDY IN BIO-MATHEMATICAL MOD- ELLING, The ANZIAM Journal 52, 225

  26. [34]

    J. C. Jackson, J. F. Windmill, V. G. Pook, and D. Robert, Synchrony through twice-frequency forcing for sensitive and selective auditory processing, PNAS 106, 10177 (2009), 19520827

    2009

  27. [35]

    J. F. C. Windmill, J. C. Jackson, V. G. Pook, and D. Robert, Frequency doubling by active in vivo motility of mechanosensory neurons in the mosquito ear, Royal Society Open Science 5, 171082 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    M. O. Magnasco, A Wave Traveling over a Hopf Instabil- ity Shapes the Cochlear Tuning Curve, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 058101

  29. [37]

    Andr´ es, M

    M. Andr´ es, M. Seifert, C. Spalthoff, B. Warren, L. Weiss, D. Giraldo, M. Winkler, S. Pauls, and M. C. G¨ opfert, Auditory efferent system modulates mosquito hearing, Curr. Biol. 26, 2028 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Georgiades, A

    M. Georgiades, A. Alampounti, J. Somers, M. P. Su, D. A. Ellis, J. Bagi, D. Terrazas-Duque, S. Tytheridge, W. Ntabaliba, S. Moore, J. T. Albert, and M. Andr´ es, Hearing of malaria mosquitoes is modulated by a beta- adrenergic-like octopamine receptor which serves as in- secti...

    2023

  31. [39]

    Stoop and A

    R. Stoop and A. Kern, Two-Tone Suppression and Com- bination Tone Generation as Computations Performed by the Hopf Cochlea, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 268103 (2004). APPENDIX Quality factor of the response to single-tone stimulus Here we estimate the quality factor of the response o...

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.