Jon Sakata:
(Tuesday, June 26, 2pm)
The structure of communication signals can change depending on the social and physical environment. Social influences on signaling and signal structure have been proposed to reflect cognitive processes underlying communicative behaviors. I will review studies from my lab, describing how social audiences affect the performance of song in songbirds and discussing the extent to which these studies provide insight into the social brain.
James, L. S., Dai, J. B., & Sakata, J. T. (2018). Ability to modulate birdsong across social contexts develops without imitative social learning. Biology Letters, 14(3), 20170777.
Chen, Y., Matheson, L. E., & Sakata, J. T. (2016). Mechanisms underlying the social enhancement of vocal learning in songbirds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(24), 6641-6646.
James, L. S., & Sakata, J. T. (2017). Learning Biases Underlie “Universals” in Avian Vocal Sequencing. Current Biology, 27(23), 3676-3682.
Si j'ai bien compris ce que M. Sakata a mentionné durant la présentation, ses études incluaient des oiseaux qui avaient été "domestiqués" en laboratoire. Mon questionnement concerne si ce même phénomène de familiarity des "courtship songs" sont également retrouvés en milieu naturel? Y a-t-il une forme de validité externe à l'étude? De plus, ce type de résultats peut-il être observés chez tous les types d'oiseaux ou seulement certaines races en particulier?
ReplyDeleteLa domestication est un processus beaucoup plus complexe que ce qui a été fait. La domestication engendre des modifications physiques d’une espèce, ce qui n’est pas le cas ici (ça prend plusieurs générations)! On parle plutôt d’habituation je crois. J’imagine que cette “familiarity”, ou habituation du mâle, à faire ces démonstrations se produit également en nature, puisque le mâle croisera quand même plusieurs femelles.
DeleteThis is interesting research. However, the animals are being confined and have to live in an artificial environment which restricts them from at least some of their natural behaviors. This as well as the frequent handling does induce at least distress. My question are: Do the benefits of this research outweigh the costs for the animals living in captivity? Would it be feasible to achieve some of this data by observing them in their natural habitat? Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI'm also wondering about the cost/benefit to those specific animals. As Priscilla Gadoury said, external validity- or in my sense, ecological validity- is a problem. More so that these settings will not produce adventitious findings since the scope of observation is so limited (achieving high levels of internal validity for the research comes with some opportunity cost).
DeleteI thought it was interesting to learn that the songs of the birds were actually passed on as learned behaviour and not instinctively known. I was wondering if this produces a kind of ´telephone effect´ over time wherein the bird song changes over time, or if it somehow stays the same from generation to generation. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteThere are actually two kinds of songbirds: those who can modify their songs throughout all their life (open program learning), like the canary or the common starling, and those who, after a certain point of crystallization, will never modify their learned songs (closed program learning), like the (famous) zebra finch or the white crowned sparrow. From what I know of the research on the later kind, I think I will be able to provide a somewhat satisfying answer to your question.
DeleteThe first phase in the ontogeny of song production is one of passive listening. During a 'critical' period soon after their birth, these birds will listen to the song of co-specifics in order to form a ‘template’. It has been proven for some of those birds that even if there are songs of others species in their environment, these birds can filter them out as noise - according to a particular syllable of the song, and not to the rhythm as it might seem at first.
Then in the second phase appears what you could call a 'telephone effect'. This phase is sometimes referred to as a sensory-motor phase, because the young males need to be able to hear their own song production so they can learn to properly use their syrinx muscles, in order to produce songs that are more and more in accordance to their learned template. The initial variations of song production could maybe be interpreted as having a telephone effect, since those variations are not always fully forgotten by these males during the crystallization of their song production – which will then serve as a template for the following generation.
On the manipulation of signaler behavior…
ReplyDeleteWhat in the behavioral feedback of the receiver could have the biggest effect on the signaler?
Would you say that unpredicted feedback from the receiver to the signaler could be particularly effective to induce modulation of the stereotyped vocalization of the signaler?
I understand that the first study covered by Jon Sakata was on the courtship songbirds of the male when they were in company of a female. This study was made with the females and the males in individual cages. I was wondering if the result would have been the same if the bird were ‘free’ in the room? Would it change the comportment of the female (remaining still)? Would the male be more likely to perform because of the proximity of the female?
ReplyDeleteCan we postulate that the presence of other entities, different or “us-like”, in the effectiveness of the audience effect, necessitate a recognition that goes beyond the mechanical and “unconscious” stimulus-response dynamic? In other words, it implies a capacity of discrimination for the audience effect to simply occur. Your studies show that there is a variation of behavior among songbirds depending if the audience is female-like or pupil-like. Would you say that the discrimination stops there? Maybe my question leaves the direct subject of your studies, and aim species that seem to have a broader discrimination capacity that implies not only “same-as-me/different” but also “not-so-far-away-from-me” discrimination. I’m thinking about something that could be seen as a more reflective discrimination process, or some kind of “mindreading”, implying comparison of abilities, of appearance, of behavior…etc. leading to an audience effect (a change in signaling behavior) that overflows the barriers of the “same-as-me/different” (same specie/different specie) discrimination and occurs whenever there’s recognition (in the presence of variety of non-predator individuals) of something that we could refer to as a source of agentivity.
ReplyDeleteSee also the presentation of Michael Ryan.
DeleteThe changes observed in the production of tutor birds while singing to juveniles (more introduction notes and longer pause between motifs) reminds of the way humans talk to babies in order to help them acquire language (hyperarticulation and so on), which is quite fascinating. In the video shown in the presentation, the tutor was really close to the juvenile (it seemed as if the tutor directed his song towards him), my question is: in the wild, do adults males sing for juveniles as close as in captivity or do they sing for themselves and the juveniles listen from afar?
ReplyDeleteJ’ai trouvé la conférence de Jon Sakata particulièrement intéressante. En effet, le fait que l’audience devant laquelle se trouve certains oiseaux (et d’autres animaux aussi) changent la manière dont ils envoient certains signaux a été un point qui a capté mon attention. Bien que les êtres humains soient les seuls à posséder un langage complexe comme le nôtre (soit un système de symboles qui permet de dire toute proposition possible), ceci n’implique pas que certains (et même plusieurs) autres animaux n’ont pas la capacité de communiquer subtilement et efficacement. Le fait que certains oiseaux mâles changent de plus d’une façon leur “courtship song” selon que la femelle soit familière ou non en est un exemple.
ReplyDeleteParmi les codes et les modes de communication biologiques et informatiques le code linguistique est très particulier à cause de sa puissance (à tout dire), ce qui n'admet pas de degrés,
DeleteIs seeing an audience effect similar to seeing a theory of mind - to be able to discriminate depending on context and the individuals present is sufficient proof for internal representation of the other's mind?
ReplyDeleteRelativement au débat sur la domestication ou la "capture" des sujets de l'étude: Ces petits oiseaux (zebra finch en anglais ou diamant mandarin en français) sont des animaux qui existent à l'état sauvage et domestique à la fois, faisant l'objet d'élevage en Europe et en Amérique depuis au moins à ma connaissance le 19e siècle. Je n'ai pu retrouver le vidéo de la présentation qui est au moment de la rédaction de la présente manquant sur la chaîne Youtube de l'école d'été, de telle sorte que je ne puis vous fournir la minute du vidéo et la citation exacte, mais M. Sakata en a brièvement parlé, mentionnant si je regarde mes notes que ces oiseaux étaient domestiqués et "they do breed a lot". Ces observations corroborent les miennes: vous pouvez facilement trouver de ces petits oiseaux nés en captivité en animalerie. Une membre de ma famille immédiate en a recueilli (destinés à l'abandon) et par ricochet involontairemnt élevé (compte tenu de leur taux de reproduction...) durant plusieurs décennies en grande volière. Je ne crois pas que ces petits oiseaux auraient pu survivre si remis en nature dans les circonstances, et il logique de penser que les sujets de l'étude peuvent être "recrutés" via cette filière sans capture en milieu naturel.
ReplyDeletePar ailleurs, j'aurais une question de conceptualisation en regard des résultats de l'étude, à laquelle le Dr Harnad pourrait probablement répondre puisque sa formation initiale était en psychologie: Pourrait-on parler ici de l'existence de la loi de Yerkes-Dodson chez ces oiseaux???
We have seen that courtship songs produced by the males have a higher tempo, a more pronounced stereotypy and a longer duration than the usual songs. Why are females more receptive to these characteristics? What are the neural mechanisms that are generated by the courtship song process?
ReplyDeleteThank you
During his presentation, Mr Sakata briefly attempted to draw a parallel between our species' general use of prosody when talking to infants and the way adult songbirds interact with their offspring. My first reaction was to point at how we aren't even really sure that such a behavior is truly "hardcoded" in human cognition (giving as example this sad trend of so called "elder-speech" … where young adults nowadays speak to elders as if they were children… betraying not an innate tendency, but instead a learned belief that elders ought to be treated like cognitively-limited, rather than looked at as models and respected). But then I remembered that Mr Sakata is a behaviorist and that attempting to interpret the behavior is not something behaviorists usually tend to risk themselves at. So instead, I'd like to praise his readiness to leave the comfort zone of his current expertise and willingness to provide some interesting food for thought to this cognitive science conference. Perhaps our (at the very least semi-innate) human tendency described above could somehow have distant common explanation with this seemingly analog but hard-coded behavior in songbirds.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the presentation. How are the courtship signals affected when two males compete to attract and seduce a female? Are the males going to try to outperform each other on one (or all) the metrics ? For example, would you see a male augmenting the tempo of his courtship signal when another male comes near, or would they simply carry on with the same signal?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCould a songbird learn a courtship song from another closely related species of bird, if that is the only one heard since birth, or it there physical specificities tied to each repertoire?
ReplyDeleteHow long will a male sing his courtship song before he gives up, when the female show no interest?
ReplyDeleteJe trouve intéressante la question tournant autour de la familiarité et la préférence quant aux chants et individus par rapport aux apprentissages sociaux. Je me questionne cependant sur les critères de familiarité entrepris par les oiseaux mâles, par exemple. Qu'est-ce qui peut permettre au mâle de considérer une femelle comme étant familière ou non? Serait-ce une question de perception visuelle, de langage non-verbal ou de phéromones?
ReplyDeleteLes oiseaux ajustent leur chant selon la présence d’individus, ce qui montre la flexibilité et la complexité de leurs signaux de communication. Le chant est généralement utiliser pour charmer une femelle. Généralement, lorsqu’un mâle chante pour une femelle, il y a moins de variabilité dans les syllabes de son chant, comme s’il chantait une sorte de version «standard». Si la femelle lui est familière, il serait moins motiver à produire son chant ou il risquerait de jouer une version plus courte du chant. L’effet d’audience se produit aussi lorsqu’il apprend son chant d’un tuteur, la visibilité du tuteur pouvant moduler l’apprentissage du chant. La question est maintenant de savoir si l’effet d’audience est volontaire, dans le sens où l’oiseau améliore consciemment sa performance, ou, s’il est inconscient (induit par un stress causant une réaction physiologique).
ReplyDeleteYou talked about the arousal and stress level of the receivers.
ReplyDelete- How are those states assessed?
- Is audience effects modulated by the physiological state (e.g., arousal, stress) of the signallers or the receivers?
Jon Sakata: Audience Effects on Communication Signals (Tuesday, June 26, 2pm)
ReplyDeleteDes expériences ont-elles été menées sur l'effet d'audience des autres espèces incluant les humains? La communication de l'oiseau est-elle toujours dirigée vers un membre de son espèce? Je n'ai pas de données scientifiques à ce sujet, mais il me semble que le chat ne communique que très peu à l'aide du miaulement avec les autres chats alors qu'il communique beaucoup de cette manière avec les humains. Quelles sont les espèces chez lesquelles ont observe une communication interespèce?