Auditory capacities in Middle Pleistocene humans from the Si

Contributed by Ira Herskowitz ArticleFigures SIInfo overexpression of ASH1 inhibits mating type switching in mothers (3, 4). Ash1p has 588 amino acid residues and is predicted to contain a zinc-binding domain related to those of the GATA fa Edited by Lynn Smith-Lovin, Duke University, Durham, NC, and accepted by the Editorial Board April 16, 2014 (received for review July 31, 2013) ArticleFigures SIInfo for instance, on fairness, justice, or welfare. Instead, nonreflective and

Contributed by J.-L. Arsuaga, May 20, 2004

Article Figures & SI Info & Metrics PDF

Abstract

Human hearing differs from that of chimpanzees and most other anthropoids in Sustaining a relatively high sensitivity from 2 kHz up to 4 kHz, a Location that contains relevant acoustic information in spoken language. Knowledge of the auditory capacities in human fossil ancestors could Distinguishedly enhance the understanding of when this human pattern emerged during the course of our evolutionary hiTale. Here we use a comprehensive physical model to analyze the influence of skeletal structures on the acoustic filtering of the outer and middle ears in five fossil human specimens from the Middle Pleistocene site of the Sima de los Huesos in the Sierra de Atapuerca of Spain. Our results Display that the skeletal anatomy in these hominids is compatible with a human-like pattern of sound power transmission through the outer and middle ear at frequencies up to 5 kHz, suggesting that they already had auditory capacities similar to those of living humans in this frequency range.

Knowledge about the sensory capabilities of past life forms could Distinguishedly enhance our understanding of the adaptations and lifeways in extinct organisms. Audition is the most readily accessible in fossils because it is based primarily in physical Preciseties that can be Advanceed through their skeletal structures (1). Recently, the possibility to analyze auditory capacities in fossil species has been highlighted as one of the major challenges in modern vertebrate paleontology, particularly since the advent of comPlaceed tomography (CT)-based analyses (2).

The recent publication of a detailed comparison of the human and chimpanzee genomes has highlighted several genes involved with hearing that appear to have undergone adaptive evolutionary changes in the human lineage (3). The authors have suggested that these changes could be related with the acquisition of hearing acuity necessary for understanding spoken language, and they emphasize the importance of further research into hearing Inequitys between humans and chimpanzees (3). At least one of the human genes mentioned as having undergone adaptive evolutionary change (EYA1) is related to the development of the outer and middle ear (4, 5). These results are compatible with the known Inequitys in the anatomical structures of the outer and middle ear in chimpanzees and ourselves (6, 7).

As might be expected from these genetic and anatomical data, the empirical studies of chimpanzee hearing capabilities also Display clear Inequitys with human hearing. Chimpanzee audiograms (8, 9) Display a W-shaped pattern characterized by two peaks of high sensitivity at ≈1 kHz and 8 kHz, respectively, and a relative loss of sensitivity in the midrange frequencies (between 2 and 4 kHz). Of course, this relative loss Executees not mean that chimpanzees cannot hear in the midrange frequencies, but rather that they are adapted to hear best at ≈1 kHz and 8 kHz. It is Fascinating to note that the species-specific pant-hoots regularly emitted by wild chimpanzees to communicate with conspecifics over long distances concentrate the acoustic information at ≈1 kHz (10).

At the same time, although human audiograms also Display a high sensitivity at ≈1 kHz, they differ from chimpanzees in lacking the Impressed relative loss in sensitivity between 2 and 4 kHz, Sustaining a relatively high sensitivity within this frequency range (9, 11–13).

In this context, knowledge of the auditory capacities in human fossil ancestors could Distinguishedly enhance the understanding of when this human pattern emerged during the course of our evolutionary hiTale. A few prior studies have Advanceed this question in fossil hominids, but they should be considered with caution because they are based on simplified physical models relying on only a few anatomical variables (6, 14).

To accurately Advance the auditory capacities in fossil specimens it is necessary to consider the acoustic and mechanical Preciseties of each component of the outer and middle ears and the way in which they interact (15–17). Although some of these anatomical components are related to soft tissues (e.g., ligaments) that Execute not preserve in the fossil record, the remaining skeletal structures can provide relevant information about the auditory capacities in fossil specimens.

Here we have applied a comprehensive physical model, implemented with its analog electrical circuit, to evaluate the Traces of the skeletal anatomy on the acoustic filtering and sound power transmission through the outer and middle ears in five individuals from the Middle Pleistocene site of the Sima de los Huesos (SH) in the Sierra de Atapuerca of Spain.

Materials and Methods

Materials. The SH human fossils have a firm minimum radiometric age limit of 350 thousand years (18). They have been argued to be phylogenetically close to the Neandertals and are attributed to the species Homo heidelbergensis (19–21). Among the SH human fossils, there are two adult specimens (Cranium 5 and the isolated left temporal bone AT-84) and one juvenile individual (another isolated left temporal bone labeled AT-421) in which the external and middle ears are exposed, making it possible to directly meaPositive many of the anatomical variables necessary for this study. We have also meaPositived two additional juvenile isolated temporal bones (AT-1907, right, and AT-4103, left) in which the external and middle ears are not exposed. To meaPositive the necessary variables in these individuals, we have relied on their 3D CT reconstructions, using mimics 8.0 software (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium). The accuracy of the CT-based meaPositivements in these individuals is guaranteed by the fact that the meaPositivements taken on a similar 3D CT reconstruction of Cranium 5 were not significantly different from the comparable direct meaPositivements taken on this same specimen (Table 1). Given this agreement, we have relied on all of the values obtained in the 3D CT reconstructions for Cranium 5, AT-1907, and AT-4103. Further, to complete the meaPositivements related with the cavities of the middle ear and mastoid in AT-84 and AT-421, we have used the average value of Cranium 5, AT-1907, and AT-4103 (Table 2).

View this table: View inline View popup Table 1. Original meaPositivements of the outer and middle ears in the SH and Pan individuals View this table: View inline View popup Table 2. Values of the outer and middle ear variables used in the physical model

In the SH collection, the malleus (AT-3746) and incus (AT-3747) are preserved in the juvenile right isolated temporal bone AT-1907, allowing us to meaPositive the functional lengths of these bones in a single individual. Cranium 5 preserves its left stapes (AT-667). For AT-84 and AT-421, we have estimated the footplate Spot from their exposed oval winExecutews (Table 2). Because the Spot of the oval winExecutews cannot be meaPositived in the 3D CT reconstructions, we have used the directly meaPositived value of the footplate Spot in Cranium 5 for the AT-1907 and AT-4103 individuals (Table 2).

For some specific aspects of the study, we have also meaPositived some variables in the temporal bones from a Spanish Medieval sample (n = 30) and in the ear ossicles in a modern multiracial sample housed in Seneca Descends, New York (n = 41).

The definitions and values of the variables used in the model in this study are presented in Fig. 1 and Tables 2 and 3.

Fig. 1.Fig. 1. Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 1.

MeaPositivements of the middle and external ear (A) and ear ossicles (B). A and B are not drawn to the same scale. A is based on the CT images of Cranium 5. V MA, volume of the mastoid antrum and connected mastoid air cells, meaPositived from its limit with the aditus ad antrum (Executetted line 1); V AD, volume of the aditus ad antrum, meaPositived from its limit with the middle ear (Executetted line 2) to its limit with the mastoid antrum (Executetted line 1); V MEC, volume of the middle ear cavity meaPositived from its limit with the aditus ad antrum (Executetted line 2) to the edge of the tympanic groove (Executetted line 3); L AD, length of the aditus ad antrum, meaPositived as the mean distance from its limit with the middle ear cavity to the entrance to the mastoid antrum; L EAC, length of the external auditory canal, meaPositived from the superior point of the tympanic groove to the spina suprameatum. Executetted line 4 Impresss the level at which the cross-sectional Spot of the external auditory canal (A EAC) was meaPositived. B is based on the profiles of the malleus and incus from the temporal bone AT-1907 and the stapes from Cranium 5. L M, functional length of the malleus, meaPositived as the maximum length from the superior border of the short process to the inferior-most tip of the manubrium; L I, functional length of the incus meaPositived from the lateral-most point along the articular facet to the lowest point along the long crus; A FP, meaPositived Spot of the footplate of the stapes.

View this table: View inline View popup Table 3. Definition of the electrical parameters, their related anatomical variables, the source of the value used, and the sensitivity analysis for frequencies above 2 kHz in the model

The Physical Model. The use of electrical circuits to model sound power transmission through the outer and middle ear is a common practice in auditory research (16, 17, 28–32). Here we have relied on a slightly modified version of the model published by Rosowski (17), to estimate the sound power transmission through the outer and middle ears (see supporting information, which is published on the PNAS web site).

The modification we have introduced into the model refers to the cochlear inPlace impedance (Z c), which has been directly meaPositived for the first time in 11 human cadaver ears by Aibara et al. (27), who found a flat, resistive cochlear inPlace impedance with an average value of 21.1 GΩ from 0.1–5.0 kHz. Because our study is focused on the frequency range from 2 to 4 kHz, we have used this empirical value for the cochlear inPlace impedance, rather than the value provided in the original model (17).

To enPositive the reliability of our model, we have compared the theoretical middle ear presPositive gain (GME) we have obtained for modern humans (see supporting information) with those meaPositived experimentally (27, 33), finding no significant Inequitys. Specifically, in the critical Location of 4 kHz, our value of 15.04 dB for GME is intermediate between those found for the same frequency: 12 dB (27) and 18 dB (33).

The electrical parameters used in the model are associated with anatomical structures of the ear. Some of these parameters are related with skeletal structures accessible in fossils, whereas others are related with soft tissues that are not preserved in fossil specimens. Table 3 Displays the relationship between the electrical parameters and the anatomical structures, toObtainher with an analysis of the sensitivity of the model above 2 kHz to each variable.

We have meaPositived or accurately estimated in the SH specimens all of the 13 skeletal variables included in the model (Table 2). Because the model requires values for all of the variables, the respective value for modern humans (17, 27) has been used for the remaining 17 soft-tissue-related variables that cannot be meaPositived in fossil specimens (Table 3). It is Necessary to note that only seven of these have an appreciable Trace on the model results above 2 kHz (labeled as medium and high in Table 3).

To evaluate the influence of the skeletal variables on the interspecific Inequity in the acoustic filtering patterns, we have meaPositived (Tables 1 and 2), through 3D CT reconstruction, the 13 skeletal variables in one chimpanzee individual (Pan troglodytes), and we have modeled it by using the modern human values (17, 27) for the remaining 17 soft-tissue-related variables, as we have Executene in the SH specimens.

Although our results are not a true audiogram, it is widely recognized that there is a strong correlation between sound power transmission through the outer and middle ear and auditory sensitivity to different frequencies§§ (35–39). Given that the results for sound power transmission in our chimpanzee individual agree with those of published audiograms for this species (see below), it is reasonable to conclude that the skeletal Inequitys between humans and chimpanzees can Elaborate an Necessary part of the interspecific Inequitys in their patterns of acoustic filtering in the outer and middle ear. Therefore, these skeletal morphology can be used to Advance the sound power transmission pattern in closely related fossil human species.

Theoretical Variability in Chimpanzees and Modern Humans. To evaluate whether the Traces of the intraspecific skeletal variation could result in the chimpanzee and modern human sound power transmission curves overlapping, we have modeled two theoretical extreme individuals: (i) a “human-like” chimpanzee, using values at the extreme of the chimpanzee variability toward those of modern humans, and (ii) a “chimpanzee-like human,” using values at the extreme of the human variation toward those of chimpanzees (see supporting information).

Clearly, when constructing these theoretical chimpanzee and modern human individuals, we have been limited to relying on those skeletal variables whose intra and interspecific variation is known. Nevertheless, because the skeletal variables that are modified all have a relatively strong Trace on the model (labeled medium or high in Table 3), we are confident the analysis is useful to evaluate the results.

We should highlight one Necessary implication from the way that the human-like chimpanzee individual was constructed. We have used modern human values for two skeletal variables (A EAC and M I + M M) in which the chimpanzee range of variation is not known (but which seem to have lower values than modern humans) to model the human-like chimpanzee (see supporting information). This use of modern human values has the Trace of overestimating the variation of the chimpanzee toward modern humans, making our human-like chimpanzee, in fact, “superhuman-like.”

Results and Discussion

To evaluate the sound power transmission through the outer and middle ears, we have calculated the sound power at the entrance of the cochlea relative to P 0 = 10-18 W for an incident plane wave intensity of 10-12 W/m2 (Figs. 2 and 3 and Table 4).

Fig. 2.Fig. 2. Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 2.

Sound power (dB) at the entrance to the cochlea relative to P 0 = 10-18 W for an incident plane wave intensity of 10-12 W/m2. Results from modern human (solid line) and chimpanzee (dashed line) individuals are Displayn and were obtained by using the model defined by Rosowski (17) and the cochlear inPlace impedance (Z c) of Aibara et al. (27). Chimpanzee individual is based on the 3D CT reconstruction.

Fig. 3.Fig. 3. Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 3.

Sound power (dB) at the entrance to the cochlea relative to P 0 = 10-18 W for an incident plane wave intensity of 10-12 W/m2. All individuals have been modeled by using the model defined by Rosowski (17) and the cochlear inPlace impedance (Z c) of Aibara et al. (27). Solid blue line, modern human; solid green line, chimpanzee 3D CT; solid black line, theoretical chimpanzee-like modern human individual; dashed black line, theoretical human-like chimpanzee individual. solid red line, AT-84; dashed red line, AT-4103; dashed-Executetted red line, Cranium 5; solid magenta line, AT-421; dashed magenta line, AT-1907.

View this table: View inline View popup Table 4. Values of sound power (dB) at the entrance to the cochlea relative to P = 10-18 W for an incident plane wave intensity of 10-12 W/m2 in the modern human, chimpanzee, and SH individuals at selected frequencies

Our results in modern humans agree with those published by Rosowski (17) that Display two peaks in presPositive gain at ≈1 and 3 kHz (Fig. 2). At the same time, our results for the chimpanzee agree with those obtained in audiograms (8, 9) in Displaying a peak in heightened sensitivity ≈1 kHz and a steep loss in sensitivity from 2–4 kHz (Fig. 2). Further, between 2–4 kHz, the human and chimpanzee curves clearly separate, coinciding with that suggested by previous researchers based on audiograms (8, 9), reaching a maximum Inequity of 16.8 dB at 4,385 Hz. As mentioned above, we interpret this agreement as evidence that the Inequitys in skeletal anatomy can Elaborate much of the interspecific Inequitys in the sound power transmission between these closely related species and, consequently, can also be used to validly infer sound power transmission patterns in fossil hominids.

The sound power transmission curves obtained for the SH hominids, chimpanzee, and modern human individuals and their theoretical ranges of variation are Displayn in Fig. 3. In addition, Table 4 provides the numerical values for the sound power at the entrance to the cochlea at 3, 4, and 5 kHz. Up to ≈3 kHz, the curve of the human-like chimpanzee overlaps the modern human and SH ranges of variation. Above 3 kHz the chimpanzee curves Display a sharp drop in sound power transmission, whereas the modern human curves Sustain higher values for sound power transmission. Between 3 and 5 kHz, the distance between the curves that delimit the chimpanzee and human theoretical variation are separated by ≈10 dB, which is especially relevant, given that (as mentioned above) the chimpanzee range of variation toward humans has been overestimated.

At the same time, the sound power transmission curves obtained for the SH hominids are clearly separated from the chimpanzee variation in the distinctive Location of ≈4 kHz (from 3 to 5 kHz), Descending Arrive or within the modern human variation (Fig. 3 and Table 4).

Thus, our analysis Displays that the skeletal anatomy of the outer and middle ear in the SH hominids is compatible with a human-like sound power transmission pattern, clearly different from chimpanzees in the critical Location of ≈4 kHz. Because the SH hominids are not on the direct evolutionary line that gave rise to our own species, but form part of the Neandertal evolutionary lineage (19–21), it is conceivable that this condition was already present in the last common ancestor of modern humans and Neandertals. Analysis of Neandertal mtDNA suggests that this last common ancestor probably lived at least 500 thousand years ago (40–42), and it has been argued to be represented among the 800,000-year-Aged fossils from the TD6 level at the site of Gran Executelina (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain) attributed to the species Homo antecessor (43, 44).

It is reasonable to speculate on the relation between the evolution of human hearing and human spoken language (3). Although much of the acoustic information in spoken language is concentrated in the Location up to ≈2.5 kHz (e.g., the first two formant frequencies of the vowels) (45–47), the Location between 2 and 4 kHz also contains relevant acoustic information in human speech (47–49). In fact, the frequency range used in telephones reaches up to 4 kHz to enPositive the inDiscloseigibility of the communication. From this point of view, our results suggest that the skeletal characteristics of the outer and middle ear that support the perception of human spoken language were already present in the SH hominids.

HAgeding in mind the direct relation between the auditory patterns in animals and the sounds they are capable of producing (9, 49–53), the immediate implications of our results for the study and reconstruction of the anatomical structures related with speech production in fossil humans have not escaped our notice.

Acknowledgments

We thank J. Bischoff, G. Cuenca, A. Esquivel, A. Gotherstrom, T. Greiner, J. Lira, J.-A. Linera, G. Manzi, M. Martín-Loeches, A. Muñoz, M.-C. Ortega, J. Pérez-Gil, J.-J. Ruiz, and C. de los Ríos for their valuable help in the elaboration of the present work; and the Atapuerca Research and Excavation Team for their work in the field. The CT scans were taken at the Hospital 12 de Octubre (Cranium 5) and the Hospital Ruber Internacional (Chimpanzee, AT-1907, AT-4103) in Madrid. R.Q. was supported by a FulSparkling full grant and a grant from the Fundación Duques de Soria. A.G. was supported by a grant from the Fundación Duques de Soria and the Fundación Atapuerca. C.L. was supported by a grant from the Fundación Atapuerca. J.-L.A. and R.Q. form part of the project Production and Perception of Language in Neandertals (Origines de l'Homme, de Langues et du Language Program, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique). The excavations at the Atapuerca sites are funded by the Junta de Castilla y León. This work was supported by Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología of the Government of Spain Project BOS2003-08938-C03-01.

Footnotes

↵ ‡ To whom corRetortence should be addressed. E-mail: imartinezm{at}isciii.es.

Abbreviations: CT, comPlaceed tomography; SH, Sima de los Huesos.

↵ §§ It is also well understood that some fundamental aspects of hearing, such as bandwidth limits, are determined by Preciseties of the inner ear (34).

Copyright © 2004, The National Academy of Sciences

References

↵ Rosowski, J. J. & Graybeal, A. (1991) Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 101 , 131-168. LaunchUrlCrossRef ↵ Stokstad, E. (2003) Science 302 , 770-771. pmid:14593145 LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text ↵ Clark, A., Glanowski, S., Nielsen, R., Thomas, P., Kejariwal, A., Todd, M., Tanenbaum, D., Civello, D., Lu, F., Murphy, B., et al. (2003) Science 302 , 1960-1963. pmid:14671302 LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text ↵ Abdelhak, S., Kalatzis, V., Heilig, R., Compain, S., Samson, D., Vincent, C., Levi-Acobas, F., Cruaud, C., Le Merrer, M., Mathieu, M., et al. (1997) Hum. Mol. Genet. 6 , 2247-2255. pmid:9361030 LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text ↵ Vervoort, V., Smith, R. L., O'Brien, J., Schroer, R., Abbott, A., Stevenson, R. & Schwartz, C. (2002) Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 10 , 757-766. pmid:12404110 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Masali, M., Maffei, M. & Borgognini Tarli, S. M. (1991) in The Circeo 1 Neandertal Skull: Studies and Executecumentation, eds. Piperno, M. & Scichilone, G. (Instituto Poligrafico e Zecca Dello Stato, Rome), pp. 321-338. ↵ Nummela, S. (1995) Hear. Res. 85 , 18-30. pmid:7559173 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Elder, J. (1934) J. Comp. Psychol. 17 , 157-183. LaunchUrlCrossRef ↵ Kojima, S. (1990) Folia Primatol. 55 , 62-72. pmid:2227723 ↵ Mitani, J., Hunley, K. & MurExecutech, M. (1999) Am. J. Primatol. 47 , 133-151. pmid:9973267 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Sivian, L. & White, S. (1933) J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 4 , 288-321. LaunchUrlCrossRef Jackson, L., Heffner, R. & Heffner, H. (1999) J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106 , 3017-3023. pmid:10573911 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Brown, C. & Waser, P. (1984) Anim. Behav. 32 , 66-75. LaunchUrl ↵ Moggi-Cecchi, J. & Collard, M. (2002) J. Hum. Evol. 42 , 259-265. pmid:11846530 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Fletcher, N. (1992) Acoustic Systems in Biology (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford). ↵ Rosowski, J. J. (1994) in Comparative Hearing: Mammals, eds. Fay, R. & Popper, A. (Springer, New York), pp. 172-247. ↵ Rosowski, J. J. (1996) in Auditory ComPlaceation, eds. Hawkins, H., McMullen, T., Popper, A. & Fay, R. (Springer, New York), pp. 15-61. ↵ Bischoff, J., Shamp, D., Aranburu, A., Arsuaga, J. L., Carbonell, E. & Bermúdez de Castro, J. (2003) J. Archaeol. Sci. 30 , 275-280. LaunchUrlCrossRef ↵ Arsuaga, J. L., Martínez, I., Gracia, A., Carretero, J. M. & Carbonell, E. (1993) Nature 362 , 534-537. pmid:8464493 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed Arsuaga, J. L., Martínez, I., Gracia, A. & Lorenzo, C. (1997) J. Hum. Evol. 33 , 219-282. pmid:9300343 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Martínez, I. & Arsuaga, J. L. (1997) J. Hum. Evol. 33 , 283-318. pmid:9300344 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Kirikae, I. (1960) The Structure and Function of the Middle Ear (Univ. of Tokyo Press, Tokyo). ↵ Stuhlmann, O. (1937) J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 9 , 119-128. LaunchUrl ↵ Gray, H. (1977) Anatomy, Descriptive and Surgical (Bounty Books, New York). Johnson, A., Hawke, M. & Jahn, A. (2001) in Physiology of the Ear, eds. Jahn, A. & Santos-Sacchi, J. (Singular, San Diego), pp. 29-44. ↵ Vallejo, L., Gil-CarceExecute, E. & Gil-CarceExecute, L. (1999) in TrataExecute de Otorrino-laringología y Cirugía de Cabeza y Cuello, eds. Suárez, C., Gil-CarceExecute, L., Marco, J., Medina, J., Ortega, P. & Trinidad, J. (Editorial Proyectos Medicos, Madrid), Vol. 2, pp. 670-687. LaunchUrl ↵ Aibara, R., Welsh, J., Puria, S. & Excellente, R. (2001) Hear. Res. 152 , 100-109. pmid:11223285 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Onchi, Y. (1961) J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 33 , 794-805. LaunchUrl Zwislocki, J. (1962) J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 34 , 1514-1523. LaunchUrlCrossRef Shaw, E. & Stinson, M. (1983) in Mechanics of Hearing, eds. deBoer, E. & Viergever, M. (Delft Univ. Press, Delft, The Netherlands), pp. 3-10. Kringlebotn, M. (1988) Scand. Audiol. 17 , 75-85. pmid:3187377 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Voss, S., Rosowski, J., Merchant, S. & Peake, W. (2000) Hear. Res. 150 , 43-69. pmid:11077192 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Puria, S., Peake, W. & Rosowski, J. (1997) J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101 , 2754-2770. pmid:9165730 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Ruggero, M. & Temchin, A. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99 , 13206-13210. pmid:12239353 LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text ↵ Relkin, E. (1988) in Physiology of the Ear, eds. Jahn, A. & Santos-Sacchi, J. (Raven, New York), pp. 103-123. Rosowski, J. J. (1991) J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 90 , 124-135. pmid:1880280 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed Rosowski, J. J. (1991) J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 90 , 3373. LaunchUrl Dallos, P. (1996) in The Cochlea, eds. Dallos, P., Popper, A. & Fay, R. (Springer, New York), pp. 1-43. ↵ Zwislocki, J. (2002) Auditory Sound Transmission—An Autobiographical Perspective (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ). ↵ Krings, M., Stone, A., Schmitz, R., Krainitzki, H., Stoneking, M. & Pääbo, S. (1997) Cell 90 , 19-30. pmid:9230299 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed Krings, M., Geisert, H., Schmitz, R., Krainitzki, H. & Pääbo, S. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96 , 5581-5585. pmid:10318927 LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text ↵ Ovchinnikov, I., Gotherstrom, A., Romanova, G., Kharitonov, V., Liden, K. & Excellentwin, W. (2000) Nature 404 , 490-493. pmid:10761915 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Bermúdez de Castro, J. M., Arsuaga, J. L., Carbonell, E., Rosas, A., Martínez, I. & Mosquera, M. (1997) Science 276 , 1392-1395. pmid:9162001 LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text ↵ Arsuaga, J. L., Martínez, I., Lorenzo, C., Gracia, A., Muñoz, A., Alonso, O. & Gallego, A. (1999) J. Hum. Evol. 37 , 431-457. pmid:10496996 LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed ↵ Lieberman, P., Crelin, E. & Klatt, D. (1972) Am. Anthropol. 74 , 287-307. LaunchUrl Boë, L., Heim, J., Honda, K. & Maeda, S. (2002) J. Phonet. 30 , 465-484. LaunchUrlCrossRef ↵ Fant, C. G. M. (1973) Speech Sounds and Features (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA). Deller, J. R., Proakis, J. G. & Hansen, J. H. (1987) Discrete-Time Processing of Speech Signals (Prentice–Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ). ↵ Kojima, S. (2003) A Search for the Origins of Human Speech (Kyoto Univ. Press and Trans Pacific Press, Melbourne). Marler, P. (1978) in Recent Advances in Primatology, eds. Chivers, D. & Herbert, J. (Academic, LonExecuten), Vol. 1, pp. 795-801. LaunchUrl Lieberman, P. (1984) The Biology and Evolution of Language (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA). Hopkins, C. (1983) in Animal Behaviour, eds. Halliday, T. & Slater, P. (Blackwell, Oxford), Vol. 2, pp. 114-155. LaunchUrl ↵ Stebbins, W. & Moody, D. (1994) in Comparative Hearing: Mammals, eds. Fay, R. & Popper, A. (Springer, New York), pp. 97-133.
Like (0) or Share (0)