 | Achtymichuk, G. H., Crane, A. L., Wrynn, T. E., Ferrari, M. C. O. 2025. Exploring the potency and replenishment of woodfrog disturbance cues, a nonspecific communication system in aquatic species. Animal Behaviour 219: 123034. |
| Akre, K. L., Ryan, M. J. 2010. Complexity increases working memory for mating signals. Current Biology 20: 502-505. |
| Amézquita, A., Flechas, S. V., Lima, A. P., Gasser, H., Hödl, W. 2011. Acoustic interference and recognition space within a complex assemblage of dendrobatid frogs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108: 17058-17063. |
| Arch, V. S., Narins, P. M. 2008. ‘Silent’ signals: selective forces acting on ultrasonic communication systems in terrestrial vertebrates. Animal Behaviour 76: 1423-1428. |
| Balestrieri, A., Gazzola, A., Pellitteri-Rosa, D., Vallortigara, G. 2019. Discrimination of group numerousness under predation risk in anuran tadpoles. Animal Cognition 22: 223-230. |
| Baugh, A. T., Akre, K. L., Ryan, M. J. 2008. Categorical perception of a natural, multivariate signal: Mating call recognition in túngara frogs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 8985-8988. |
| Baugh, A. T., Ryan, M. J. 2010. The relative value of call embellishment in túngara frogs. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 65: 359-367. |
| Bee, M. A. 2003. A test of the "dear enemy effect" in the strawberry dart-poison frog (Dendrobates pumilio). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 54: 601-610. |
| Bee, M. A. 2008. Finding a mate at a cocktail party: spatial release from masking improves acoustic mate recognition in grey treefrogs. Animal Behaviour 75: 1781-1791. |
| Bee, M. A., Cook, J. M., Love, E. K., O’Bryan, L. R., Pettitt, B. A., Schrode, K., Vélez, A. 2010. Assessing acoustic signal variability and the potential for sexual selection and social recognition in Boreal chorus frogs (Pseudacris maculata). Ethology 116: 564-576. |
| Bee, M. A., Gerhardt, H. C. 2002. Individual voice recognition in a territorial frog (Rana catesbeiana). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 269: 1443-1448. |
| Bee, M. A., Reichert, M. S., Tumulty, J. 2016. Chapter four - assessment and recognition of rivals in anuran contests. Advances in the study of behavior 48: 161-249. |
| Bee, M. A., Schachtman, T. R. 2000. Is habituation a mechanism for neighbor recognition in green frogs?. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 48: 165-168. |
| Bee, M. A., Schwartz, J. J., Summers, K. 2013. All's well that begins Wells: celebrating 60 years of Animal Behaviour and 36 years of research on anuran social behaviour. Animal Behaviour 85: 5-18. |
| Bernal, X. E., Rand, A. S., Ryan, M. J. 2009. Task differences confound sex differences in receiver permissiveness in túngara frogs. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276: 1323-1329. |
| Blackiston, D. J., Levin, M. 2013. Inversion of left–right asymmetry alters performance of Xenopus tadpoles in nonlateralized cognitive tasks. Animal Behaviour 86: 459-466. |
| Bleach, I. T., Beckmann, C., Both, C., Brown, G. P., Shine, R. 2015. Noisy neighbours at the frog pond: effects of invasive cane toads on the calling behaviour of native Australian frogs. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 69: 675-683. |
| Boatright-Horowitz, S. L., Horowitz, S. S., Simmons, A. M. 2000. Patterns of vocal interactions in a bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) chorus: Preferential responding to far neighbors. Ethology 106: 701-712. |
| Bosch, J., Rand, A. S., Ryan, M. J. 2000. Acoustic competition in Physalaemus pustulosus, a differential response to calls of relative frequency. Ethology 106: 865-871. |
| Brepson, L., Voituron, Y., Lengagne, T. 2013. Condition-dependent ways to manage acoustic signals under energetic constraint in a tree frog. Behavioral Ecology 24: 488-496. |