|
Stober, M., & Geiger, J. F. (1975). [Lamenting “moaning” in domestic cattle]. Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr, 82(1), 10–13.
|
|
Bergmann, H. H., Klaus, S., Muller, F., & Wiesner, J. (1975). [Individuality and type specificity in the songs of a population of hazel grouse (Bonasa bonasia bonasia L., Tetraoninae, Phasianidae)]. Behaviour, 55(1-2), 94–114.
|
Graham, M., & Letz, R. (1979). Within-species variation in the development of ultrasonic signaling of preweanling rats. Dev Psychobiol, 12(2), 129–136.
Abstract: The development of litter and individual differences in the rate of ultrasonic signaling of neonatal rats was studied. Systematic variations among litters and individuals emerged, without differential treatment. These differences were not correlated with variations in general development as indexed by body weight. Two experiments using a cross-fostering design showed that litter differences developed independently of variations in postnatal environment. These results indicate that the variations among litters in ultrasound rate have a prenatal, possibly genetic, etiology and may represent reliable indicants of response to environmental stress.
|
Janik, V. M. (2000). Whistle matching in wild bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Science, 289(5483), 1355–1357.
Abstract: Dolphin communication is suspected to be complex, on the basis of their call repertoires, cognitive abilities, and ability to modify signals through vocal learning. Because of the difficulties involved in observing and recording individual cetaceans, very little is known about how they use their calls. This report shows that wild, unrestrained bottlenose dolphins use their learned whistles in matching interactions, in which an individual responds to a whistle of a conspecific by emitting the same whistle type. Vocal matching occurred over distances of up to 580 meters and is indicative of animals addressing each other individually.
|
Owren, M. J., Dieter, J. A., Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (1993). Vocalizations of rhesus (Macaca mulatta) and Japanese (M. fuscata) macaques cross-fostered between species show evidence of only limited modification. Dev Psychobiol, 26(7), 389–406.
Abstract: Two rhesus and two Japanese macaque infants were cross-fostered between species in order to study the effects of auditory experience on vocal development. Both the cross-fostered and normally raised control subjects were observed over the first 2 years of life and their vocalizations were tape-recorded. We classified 8053 calls by ear, placed each call in one of six acoustic categories, and calculated the rates at which different call-types were used in different social contexts. Species differences were found in the use of “coo” and “gruff” vocalizations among control subjects. Japanese macaques invariably produced coos almost exclusively. In contrast, rhesus macaques produced a mixture of coos and gruffs and showed considerable interindividual variation in the relative use of one call type or the other. Cross-fostered Japanese macaques adhered to their species-typical behavior, rarely using gruffs. Cross-fostered rhesus subjects also exhibited species-typical behavior in many contexts, but in some situations produced coos and gruffs at rates that were intermediate between those shown by normally raised animals of the two species. This outcome suggests that environmentally mediated modification of vocal behavior may have occurred, but that the resulting changes were quite limited.
|
|
Kiley, M. (1972). The vocalizations of ungulates, their causation and function. Z. Tierpsychol., 31(2), 171–222.
|
Owren, M. J., Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (1997). The acoustic features of vowel-like grunt calls in chacma baboons (Papio cyncephalus ursinus): implications for production processes and functions. J Acoust Soc Am, 101(5 Pt 1), 2951–2963.
Abstract: The acoustic features of 216 baboon grunts were investigated through analysis of field-recorded calls produced by identified females in known contexts. Analyses addressed two distinct questions: whether the acoustic features of these tonal sounds could be characterized using a source-filter approach and whether the acoustic features of grunts varied by individual caller and social context. Converging evidence indicated that grunts were produced through a combination of periodic laryngeal vibration and a stable vocal tract filter. Their acoustic properties closely resembled those of prototypical human vowel sounds. In general, variation in the acoustic features of the grunts was more strongly related to caller identity than to the social contexts of calling. However, two acoustic parameters, second formant frequency and overall spectral tilt, did vary consistently depending on whether the caller was interacting with an infant or participating in a group move. Nonetheless, in accordance with the general view that identity cueing is a compelling function in animal communication, it can be concluded that much of the observed variability in grunt acoustics is likely to be related to this aspect of signaling. Further, cues related to vocal tract filtering appear particularly likely to play an important role in identifying individual calling animals.
|
Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (1984). The acoustic features of vervet monkey grunts. J Acoust Soc Am, 75(5), 1623–1628.
Abstract: East African vervet monkeys give short (125 ms), harsh-sounding grunts to each other in a variety of social situations: when approaching a dominant or subordinate member of their group, when moving into a new area of their range, or upon seeing another group. Although all these vocalizations sound similar to humans, field playback experiments have shown that the monkeys distinguish at least four different calls. Acoustic analysis reveals that grunts have an aperiodic F0, at roughly 240 Hz. Most grunts exhibit a spectral peak close to this irregular F0. Grunts may also contain a second, rising or falling frequency peak, between 550 and 900 Hz. The location and changes in these two frequency peaks are the cues most likely to be used by vervets when distinguishing different grunt types.
|
Mercado, E. 3rd, Herman, L. M., & Pack, A. A. (2005). Song copying by humpback whales: themes and variations. Anim. Cogn., 8(2), 93–102.
Abstract: Male humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) produce long, structured sequences of sound underwater, commonly called “songs.” Humpbacks progressively modify their songs over time in ways that suggest that individuals are copying song elements that they hear being used by other singers. Little is known about the factors that determine how whales learn from their auditory experiences. Song learning in birds is better understood and appears to be constrained by stable core attributes such as species-specific sound repertoires and song syntax. To clarify whether similar constraints exist for song learning by humpbacks, we analyzed changes over 14 years in the sounds used by humpback whales singing in Hawaiian waters. We found that although the properties of individual sounds within songs are quite variable over time, the overall distribution of certain acoustic features within the repertoire appears to be stable. In particular, our findings suggest that species-specific constraints on temporal features of song sounds determine song form, whereas spectral variability allows whales to flexibly adapt song elements.
|
Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (2003). Signalers and receivers in animal communication. Annu Rev Psychol, 54, 145–173.
Abstract: In animal communication natural selection favors callers who vocalize to affect the behavior of listeners and listeners who acquire information from vocalizations, using this information to represent their environment. The acquisition of information in the wild is similar to the learning that occurs in laboratory conditioning experiments. It also has some parallels with language. The dichotomous view that animal signals must be either referential or emotional is false, because they can easily be both: The mechanisms that cause a signaler to vocalize do not limit a listener's ability to extract information from the call. The inability of most animals to recognize the mental states of others distinguishes animal communication most clearly from human language. Whereas signalers may vocalize to change a listener's behavior, they do not call to inform others. Listeners acquire information from signalers who do not, in the human sense, intend to provide it.
|
