Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 165–175 | Cite as

Rule learning by zebra finches in an artificial grammar learning task: which rule?

  • Caroline A. A. van Heijningen
  • Jiani Chen
  • Irene van Laatum
  • Bonnie van der Hulst
  • Carel ten CateEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

A hallmark of the human language faculty is the use of syntactic rules. The natural vocalizations of animals are syntactically simple, but several studies indicate that animals can detect and discriminate more complex structures in acoustic stimuli. However, how they discriminate such structures is often not clear. Using an artificial grammar learning paradigm, zebra finches were tested in a Go/No-go experiment for their ability to distinguish structurally different three-element sound sequences. In Experiment 1, zebra finches learned to discriminate ABA and BAB from ABB, AAB, BBA, and ABB sequences. Tests with probe sounds consisting of four elements suggested that the discrimination was based on attending to the presence or absence of repeated A- and B-elements. One bird generalized the discrimination to a new element type. In Experiment 2, we continued the training by adding four-element songs following a ‘first and last identical versus different’ rule that could not be solved by attending to repetitions. Only two out of five birds learned the overall discrimination. Testing with novel probes demonstrated that discrimination was not based on using the ‘first and last identical’ rule, but on attending to the presence or absence of the individual training stimuli. The two birds differed in the strategies used. Our results thus demonstrate only a limited degree of abstract rule learning but highlight the need for extensive and critical probe testing to examine the rules that animals (and humans) use to solve artificial grammar learning tasks. They also underline that rule learning strategies may differ between individuals.

Keywords

Biolinguistics Artificial grammar learning Discrimination learning Rule learning Syntax Songbird 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Verena Ohms for help with the statistics, Rinus Heijmans and Frits van Tol for constructing the operant conditioning cages, and Rob van der Linden en Ap Gluvers for the operant controllers.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

This study was conducted according to the Association for the Study of Animal Behavior guidelines on animal experimentation as well as to the Dutch law on animal experimentation. The Leiden committee for animal experimentation (DEC) approved the experiment under number 09228.

References

  1. Abe K, Watanabe D (2011) Songbirds possess the spontaneous ability to discriminate syntactic rules. Nat Neurosci 14:1067–1173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beckers GJL, Bolhuis JJ, Okanoya K, Berwick RC (2012) Birdsong neurolinguistics: songbird context free grammar is premature. NeuroReport 23:139–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berwick RC, Okanoya K, Beckers GJL, Bolhuis JJ (2011) Songs to syntax: the linguistics of birdsong. Trends Cogn Sci 15:113–121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolhuis JJ, Okanoya K, Scharff C (2010) Twitter evolution: converging mechanisms in birdsong and human speech. Nat Rev Neurosci 11:747–759PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Corballis MC (2007) Recursion, language and starlings. Cogn Sci 31:697–704PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corballis MC (2009) Do rats learn rules? Anim Behav 78:E1–E2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Creel SC, Newport EL, Aslin RN (2004) Distant melodies: statistical learning of nonadjacent dependencies in tone sequences. J Exp Psychol Learn 30:1119–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doupe AJ, Kuhl PK (1999) Birdsong and human speech: common themes and mechanisms. Annu Rev Neurosci 22:567–631PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Endress AD (2010) Learning melodies from non-adjacent tones. Acta Psychol 135:182–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Endress AD, Scholl BJ, Mehler J (2005) The role of salience in the extraction of algebraic rules. J Exp Psychol Gen 134:406–419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Endress AD, Dehaene-Lambertz G, Mehler J (2007) Perceptual constraints and the learnability of simple grammars. Cognition 105:577–614PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Endress AD, Cahill D, Block S, Watumull J, Hauser MD (2009a) Evidence of an evolutionary precursor to human language affixation in a non-human primate. Biol Lett 5:749–751PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Endress AD, Nespor M, Mehler J (2009b) Perceptual and memory constraints on language acquisition. Trends Cogn Sci 13:348–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Endress AD, Carden S, Versace E, Hauser MD (2010) The apes’ edge: positional learning in chimpanzees and humans. Anim Cogn 13:483–495PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Folia V, Uddén J, de Vries M, Forkstam C, Petersson KM (2010) Artificial language learning in children and adults. Lang learn 60(suppl 2):188–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fountain SB, Rowan JD (1995) Sensitivity to violations of “run” and “trill” structures in rat serial-pattern learning. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 21:78–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frank MC, Slemmer JA, Marcus GF, Johnson SP (2009) Information from multiple modalities helps 5-month-olds learn abstract rules. Dev Science 12:504–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gebhart AL, Newport EL, Aslin RN (2009) Statistical learning of adjacent and nonadjacent dependencies among nonlinguistic sounds. Psychon Bull Rev 16:486–490PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gentner TQ, Fenn KM, Margoliash D, Nusbaum HC (2006) Recursive syntactic pattern learning by songbirds. Nature 440:1204–1207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gerken L (2006) Decisions, decisions: infant language learning when multiple generalizations are possible. Cognition 98:B67–B74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gomez RL, Gerken L (2000) Infant artificial language learning and language acquisition. Trends Cogn Sci 4:178–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hauser MD, Glynn D (2009) Can free-ranging rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) extract artificially created rules comprised of natural vocalizations? J Comp Psychol 123:161–167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hauser MD, Newport AL, Aslin RN (2001) Segmentation of the speech stream in a non-human primate: statistical learning in cotton-top tamarins. Cognition 78:B53–B64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hauser MD, Chomsky N, Fitch WT (2002a) The faculty of language: what is it, who has it and how did it evolve? Science 298:1569–1579PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hauser MD, Weiss D, Marcus GF (2002b) Rule learning by cotton-top tamarins. Cognition 86(1):B15–B22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hauser MD, Weiss D, Marcus GF (2010) Rule learning by cotton-top tamarins Retraction of vol 86 pg B15, 2002. Cognition 117:106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Herbranson WT, Shimp CP (2008) Artificial grammar learning in pigeons. Learn Behav 36:116–137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Holveck MJ, Viera de Castro AC, Lachlan RF, ten Cate C, Riebel K (2008) Accuracy of song syntax learning and singing consistency signal early condition in zebra finches. Behav Ecol 19:1267–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marcus GF (2006) Language- startling starlings. Nature 440:1117–1118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marcus GF, Vijayan S, Rao SB, Vishton PM (1999) Rule learning by seven-month-old infants. Science 283:77–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Murphy RA, Mondragon E, Murphy VA (2008) Rule learning by rats. Science 319:1849–1851PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Newport EL, Aslin RN (2004) Learning at a distance I: statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies. Cogn Psychol 48:127–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Newport EL, Hauser MD, Spaepen G, Aslin RN (2004) Learning at a distance II. Statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies in a non-human primate. Cogn Psychol 49:85–117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Saffran JR, Aslin RN, Newport EL (1996) Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274:1926–1928PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Saffran JR, Johnson EK, Aslin RN, Newport EL (1999) Statistical learning of tone sequences by human infants and adults. Cognition 70:27–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Saffran JR, Pollak SD, Seibel RL, Shkolnik A (2007) Dog is a dog is a dog: infant rule learning is not specific to language. Cognition 105:669–680PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Saffran JR, Hauser MD, Seibel R, Kapfhamer J, Tsao F, Cushman F (2008) Grammatical pattern learning by human infants and cotton-top tamarin monkeys. Cognition 107:479–500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. Freeman and Co, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. ten Cate C, Okanoya K (2012) Revisiting the syntactic abilities of non-human animals: natural vocalizations and artificial grammar learning. Phil Trans R Soc B 367:1984–1994PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. ten Cate C, van Heijningen CAA, Zuidema W (2010) Reply to Gentner et al.: as simple as possible, but not simpler. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(16):E66–E67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Toro JM, Trobalon JB (2005) Statistical computation over a speech stream in a rodent. Percept Psychophys 67:867–875PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Heijningen CAA, de Visser J, Zuidema W, ten Cate C (2009) Simple rules can explain discrimination of putative recursive syntactic structures by a songbird species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:20538–20543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Verzijden MN, Etman E, van Heijningen C, van der Linden M, ten Cate C (2007) Song discrimination learning in zebra finches induces highly divergent responses to novel songs. Proc R Soc B 274:295–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zimmerer VC, Cowell PE, Varley RA (2011) Individual behavior in learning of an artificial grammar. Mem Cogn 39:491–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Caroline A. A. van Heijningen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jiani Chen
    • 1
  • Irene van Laatum
    • 1
  • Bonnie van der Hulst
    • 1
  • Carel ten Cate
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Behavioural Biology, Institute of Biology Leiden, Sylvius LaboratoryLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Leiden Institute for Brain and CognitionLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations