|
|
Fischer, J., Hammerschmidt, K., Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (2002). Acoustic features of male baboon loud calls: influences of context, age, and individuality. J Acoust Soc Am, 111(3), 1465–1474.
Abstract: The acoustic structure of loud calls (“wahoos”) recorded from free-ranging male baboons (Papio cynocephalus ursinus) in the Moremi Game Reserve, Botswana, was examined for differences between and within contexts, using calls given in response to predators (alarm wahoos), during male contests (contest wahoos), and when a male had become separated from the group (contact wahoos). Calls were recorded from adolescent, subadult, and adult males. In addition, male alarm calls were compared with those recorded from females. Despite their superficial acoustic similarity, the analysis revealed a number of significant differences between alarm, contest, and contact wahoos. Contest wahoos are given at a much higher rate, exhibit lower frequency characteristics, have a longer “hoo” duration, and a relatively louder “hoo” portion than alarm wahoos. Contact wahoos are acoustically similar to contest wahoos, but are given at a much lower rate. Both alarm and contest wahoos also exhibit significant differences among individuals. Some of the acoustic features that vary in relation to age and sex presumably reflect differences in body size, whereas others are possibly related to male stamina and endurance. The finding that calls serving markedly different functions constitute variants of the same general call type suggests that the vocal production in nonhuman primates is evolutionarily constrained.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
