Fig 1.
Measured variables for fat-tailed gerbils USV syllables exemplified by a pup 3-note down-up USV syllable with Chevron contour.
Spectrogram (right) and mean power spectrum of the entire call (left). Designations: duration–syllable duration; f0beg–the fundamental frequency at the onset of a call; f0end–the fundamental frequency at the end of a call; f0max–the maximum fundamental frequency; f0min–the minimum fundamental frequency; fpeak–the frequency of maximum amplitude within a syllable; bndw–the bandwidth of the fpeak at the distance of 10 dB from the maximum Spectrogram was created using sampling frequency 192 kHz Hamming window, FFT 1024 points, frame 50% and overlap 93.75%.
Fig 2.
Six contour shapes (A, upper panel) and six note compositions (B, lower panel). Based on their combinations, USV syllables of fat-tailed gerbils were classified to distinct types (S1 Audio). Spectrogram was created using sampling frequency 192 kHz Hamming window, FFT 1024 points, frame 50%, overlap 87.5%.
Table 1.
Number and percentage of 18 distinct USV syllable types of pups, classified based on combination of contour shape and note composition.
Table 2.
Number and percentage of 24 distinct USV syllable types of adults, classified based on combination of contour shape and note composition.
Fig 3.
Percentages of pup and adult USV syllables with different contour shapes.
Fig 4.
Percentages of pup and adult USV syllables with different note compositions.
Table 3.
Values (mean±SD, min-max) of acoustic variables of pup and adult USV syllables and nested ANOVA results for their comparison.
Table 4.
Values (mean±SD) of acoustic variables of fat-tailed gerbil pup and adult 1-note USV syllables and nested ANOVA results for their comparison.
Table 5.
Values (mean±SD) of acoustic variables of fat-tailed gerbil pup and adult flat 1-note USV syllables and nested ANOVA results for their comparison.
Table 6.
Values (mean±SD) of acoustic variables of fat-tailed gerbil pup and adult chevron 1-note USV syllables and nested ANOVA results for their comparison.
Table 7.
Values (mean±SD) of acoustic variables of pup 1-note USV syllables with different contour shapes (flat, chevron, downward, upward, short, complex) and one-way ANOVA results for their comparison.
Table 8.
Values (mean±SD) of acoustic variables of adult 1-note USV syllables with different contour shapes (flat, chevron, downward, upward, short, complex) and one-way ANOVA results for their comparison.
Table 9.
Values (mean±SD) of acoustic variables of pup USV syllables with different number of notes within syllable (1, 2, 3, multi-note) and one-way ANOVA results for their comparison.
Table 10.
Values (mean±SD) of acoustic variables of adult USV with different number of notes within syllable (1, 2, 3, multi-note) and one-way ANOVA results for their comparison.