Advertisement

Closed-loop bird–computer interactions: a new method to study the role of bird calls

  • 204 Accesses

  • 2 Citations

Abstract

In the field of songbird research, many studies have shown the role of male songs in territorial defense and courtship. Calling, another important acoustic communication signal, has received much less attention, however, because calls are assumed to contain less information about the emitter than songs do. Birdcall repertoire is diverse, and the role of calls has been found to be significant in the area of social interaction, for example, in pair, family, and group cohesion. However, standard methods for studying calls do not allow precise and systematic study of their role in communication. We propose herein a new method to study bird vocal interaction. A closed-loop computer system interacts with canaries, Serinus canaria, by (1) automatically classifying two basic types of canary vocalization, single versus repeated calls, as they are produced by the subject, and (2) responding with a preprogrammed call type recorded from another bird. This computerized animal–machine interaction requires no human interference. We show first that the birds do engage in sustained interactions with the system, by studying the rate of single and repeated calls for various programmed protocols. We then show that female canaries differentially use single and repeated calls. First, they produce significantly more single than repeated calls, and second, the rate of single calls is associated with the context in which they interact, whereas repeated calls are context independent. This experiment is the first illustration of how closed-loop bird–computer interaction can be used productively to study social relationships.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Aldridge HDJN, Rautenbach IL (1987) Morphology, echolocation and resource partitioning in insectivorous bats. J Anim Ecol 56:763–778

  2. Amrhein V, Erne N (2006) Dawn singing reflects past territorial challenges in the winter wren. Anim Behav 71:1075–1080

  3. Amy M, Monbureau M, Durand C, Gomez D, Théry M, Leboucher G (2008) Female canary mate preferences: differential use of information from two types of male-male interaction. Anim Behav 76:971–982

  4. Beecher MD, Beecher IM, Hahn S (1981) Parent-offspring recognition in bank swallows (Riparia riparia): II. Development and acoustic basis. Anim Behav 29:95–101

  5. Bradbury JW (2003) Vocal communication in wild parrots. In: De Waal FBM, Tyack PL (eds) Animal society complexity: intelligenceculture and individualized societies. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 293–316

  6. Brumm H, Todt D (2004) Male-male vocal interactions and the adjustment of song amplitude in a territorial bird. Anim Behav 67:281–286

  7. Castellano S (2009) Unreliable preferences, reliable choice and sexual selection in leks. Anim Behav 77:225–232

  8. Catchpole CK, Slater PJB (1995) Bird song, biological themes and variations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  9. Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (1990) How monkeys see the world—inside the mind of another species Behaviour. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

  10. Clutton-Brock TH, Albon SD (1979) The roaring of red deer and the evolution of honest advertising. Behaviour 69:145–170

  11. Derégnaucourt S, Mitra PP, Fehér O, Pytte C, Tchernichovski O (2005) How sleep affects the developmental learning of bird song. Nature 433:710–716

  12. Draganoiu TI, Nagle L, Musseau R, Kreutzer M (2006) In a songbird, the black redstart, parent use acoustic cues to discriminate between their different fledglings. Anim Behav 71:1039–1046

  13. Emery NJ (2005) The evolution of social cognition. In: Easton A, Emery NJ (eds) The cognitive neuroscience of social behaviour. Psychology, New York, pp 7.1–7.98

  14. Evans CS, Evans L, Marler P (1993) On the meaning of alarm calls: functional reference in an avian vocal system. Anim Behav 46:23–38

  15. Gerhardt HC, Huber F (2002) Acoustic communication in insects and anurans: common problems and diverse solutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

  16. Giret N, Roy P, Albert A, Pachet F, Kreutzer M, Bovet D (in press) Finding acoustic features for parrots vocalizations: the features generation approach. JASA

  17. Grodzinski U, Lotem A (2007) The adaptative value of parental responsiveness to nestling begging. Proc R Soc B 274:2449–2456

  18. Hauser MD (1997) The evolution of communication. MIT Press, Bradford

  19. Johnstone RA (1995) Sexual selection, honest advertisement and the handicap principle: reviewing the evidence. Biol Rev 70:1–65

  20. Klump GM, Shalter MD (1984) Acoustic behaviour of birds and mammals in the predator context. I. Factors affecting the structure of alarm signals. II. The functional significance and evolution of alarm signals. Zeit Tierpsychol 66:189–226

  21. Kroodsma DE (2004) Vocal behavior. In: Podulka S, Rohrbaugh RWJ, Bonney R (eds) Handbook of bird biology. Princeton University Press, New York, pp 7.1–7.98

  22. Lu L, Zhang H-J, Jiang H (2002) Content analysis for audio classification and segmentation. IEEE Trans Speech Audio Process 10:504–516

  23. Marler P (2004) Bird calls: a cornucopia for communication. In: Marler P, Slabbekoorn H (eds) Nature’s music. Elsiever Academic, San Diego, pp 132–177

  24. Marler P, Dufty A, Pickert R (1986) Vocal communication in the domestic chicken. II. Is a sender sensitive to the presence and nature of a receiver? Anim Behav 34:194–198

  25. Maynards Smith J, Harper D (2003) Animal signals. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  26. McGregor PK, Dabelsteen T (1996) Communication networks. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller EH (eds) Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds. Comstock, New York, pp 409–425

  27. Mennill DJ, Ratcliffe LM (2004) Overlapping and matching in the song contests of black-capped chickadees. Anim Behav 67:441–450

  28. Mennill DJ, Boag PT, Ratcliffe LM (2003) The reproductive choice of eavesdropping female black-capped chickadees, Poecile atricapillus. Naturwissenschaften 90:577–582

  29. Mitchell Masters W (1979) Insect disturbance stridulation: its defensive role. Behav Ecol Soc 5:187–200

  30. Molnár C, Kaplan F, Roy P, Pachet F, Pongrácz P, Dóka A, Miklósi Á (2008) Classification of dog barks: a machine learning approach. Anim Cogn 11:389–400

  31. Mulligan JA, Olsen KC (1969) Communication in canary courtship calls. In: Hinde RA (ed) Bird vocalisation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 165–184

  32. Nagle L, Kreutzer M, Vallet E (2002) Adult female canaries respond to male song by calling. Ethology 108:463–472

  33. Naguib M (2005) Singing interactions in songbirds: implications for social relations and territorial settlement. In: McGregor PK (ed) Animal communication networks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 300–319

  34. Newton I (1972) Finches. Collins, London

  35. Okanoya K, Dooling RJ (1991) Detection of species-specific calls in noise by zebra finches Poephila guttata and budgerigars Melopsittacus undulatus: time or frequency domain? Bioacoustic 3:163–172

  36. Pachet F, Roy P (2009) Analytical features: a knowledge-based approach to audio feature generation. EURASIP J Audio Speech Music Process 1:1–23

  37. Smith WJ (1977) The behaviour of communication—an ethological approach. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

  38. Sprau P, Schmidt R, Roth T, Amrhein V, Naguib M (2010) Effects of rapid broadband trills on responses to song overlapping in nightingales. Ethology 116:300–308

  39. Struhsaker TT (1967) Auditory communication among Vervet monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops). In: Altmann SA (ed) Social communication among primates. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

  40. Tchernichovski O, Lints TJ, Derégnaucourt S, Cimenser A, Mitra PP (2004) Studying the song development process, rationale and methods. Ann NY Acad Sci 1016:348–363

  41. Vallet E, Kreutzer M (1995) Female canaries are sexually responsive to special song phrases. Anim Behav 49:1603–1610

  42. Vallet E, Beme I, Kreutzer M (1998) Two-note syllables in canary songs elicit high levels of sexual display. Anim Behav 55:291–297

  43. Vignal C, Mathevon N, Mottin S (2004) Audience drives male songbird response to partner’s choice. Nature 430:448–451

  44. West MJ, King AP (1988) Female visual displays affect the development of male song in the cowbird. Nature 334:244–246

  45. Witten IH, Eibe F (2005) Data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco

  46. Wyndham E (1980) Diurnal cycle, behaviour, and social organization of the budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus). Emu 80:25–33

Download references

Acknowledgments

A.L. is funded by the Institut Emilie Du Châtelet, which supports research on women, sex, and gender. We want to thank N. Giret and Z. Skandrani for participation in the early stages of this work, and C. Desaleux and P. Groué for taking care of the birds. We also thank the referees for their helpful comments and advice, and Katy Masuga for her help with the English translation. All stages of this experiment were carried out under agreement number 92-244 (L.N.), delivered by the French Ministry for Agriculture and Fisheries, and comply with the current laws of France. The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Correspondence to Alexandre Lerch.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1. Positive interaction. The computer responds with a prerecorded single call when the bird produces a single call, and with a prerecorded complex call when the bird produces a complex call. (WMV 1428 kb)

Supplementary material 2. Negative interaction. The computer responds with a prerecorded single call when the bird produces a complex call, and with a prerecorded complex call when the bird produces a single call. (WMV 1388 kb)

Supplementary material 3. Synthesized interaction. The computer responds with an artificial sound when the bird produces a call. In this example, it responds with an artificial sound like a single call when the bird produces a single call, and with an artificial sound like a complex call when the bird produces a complex call. (WMV 1612 kb)

Supplementary material 1. Positive interaction. The computer responds with a prerecorded single call when the bird produces a single call, and with a prerecorded complex call when the bird produces a complex call. (WMV 1428 kb)

Supplementary material 2. Negative interaction. The computer responds with a prerecorded single call when the bird produces a complex call, and with a prerecorded complex call when the bird produces a single call. (WMV 1388 kb)

Supplementary material 3. Synthesized interaction. The computer responds with an artificial sound when the bird produces a call. In this example, it responds with an artificial sound like a single call when the bird produces a single call, and with an artificial sound like a complex call when the bird produces a complex call. (WMV 1612 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lerch, A., Roy, P., Pachet, F. et al. Closed-loop bird–computer interactions: a new method to study the role of bird calls. Anim Cogn 14, 203–211 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-010-0353-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Single call
  • Repeated call
  • Social interaction
  • Computer
  • Methodology
  • Canary
  • Serinus canaria