Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 70, Issue 3, pp 409–416 | Cite as

Does multimodality per se improve receiver performance? An explicit comparison of multimodal versus unimodal complex signals in a learned signal following task

  • Tricia L. RubiEmail author
  • David W. Stephens
Original Article

Abstract

Multimodal signals are widespread in animal communication. Theoreticians have noted that, from an informational perspective, it is often not clear why multimodal signals should offer any benefit over unimodal complex signals. One possibility is that multimodal signals provide psychological benefits to receivers by virtue of the fact that they stimulate multiple sensory systems. Explicit comparisons of multimodal signals and unimodal complex signals are lacking, however. In this experiment, we examined the behavior of blue jays (Cyanocitta cristata) in a learned signal following task with two-component artificial signals that were either unimodal (visual-visual) or multimodal (visual-acoustic). We also manipulated the reliability of the components to verify that the subjects were able to follow each component type. We compared three measures of receiver performance—proportion of correct responses, learning rate, and reaction time. We found that while our subjects were able to follow both visual and acoustic signal components, performance did not differ in unimodal versus multimodal treatments.

Keywords

Multimodal Complex signals Multimodal signals Signaling Communication Receivers 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank V. Heinen, T. Polnaszek, J. Higham, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on the manuscript, as well as the undergraduates in the Stephens lab, without whom this work would not be possible. We also thank O. Tchernichovski for advising us on the design of the sound attenuation chambers and M. Bee for providing advice and testing equipment. This work was supported by the Alexander and Lydia Anderson Fellowship and the Carol H. and Wayne A. Pletcher Fellowship.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All housing and experimental procedures were approved by the University of Minnesota Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (protocol #1109A04421).

References

  1. Alvarado JC, Vaughan JW, Stanford TR, Stein BE (2007) Multisensory versus unisensory integration: contrasting modes in the superior colliculus. J Neurophysiol 97:3193–3205CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson S, Pryke SR, Ornborg J, Lawes MJ, Andersson M (2002) Multiple receivers, multiple ornaments, and a trade-off between agonistic and epigamic signaling in a widowbird. Am Nat 160:683–691CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown SG, Boettner GH, Yack JE (2007) Clicking caterpillars: acoustic aposematism in Antheraea polyphemus and other Bombycoidea. J Exp Biol 210:993–1005CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bura VL, Fleming AJ, Yack JE (2009) What’s the buzz? Ultrasonic and sonic warning signals in caterpillars of the great peacock moth (Saturnia pyri). Naturwissenschaften 96:713–718CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Candolin U (2003) The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol Rev Camb Philos 78:575–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chandrasekaran C, Lemus L, Trubanova A, Gondan M, Ghazanfar AA (2011) Monkeys and humans share a common computation for face/voice integration. PLoS Comput Biol 7:e1002165CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen S, Stebbins W, Moody D (1978) Audibility thresholds of the Blue Jay. Auk 95:563–568Google Scholar
  9. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A (2007) G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39:175–191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gingras G, Rowland BA, Stein BE (2009) The differing impact of multisensory and unisensory integration on behavior. J Neurosci 29:4897–4902CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Guilford T, Dawkins MS (1991) Receiver psychology and the evolution of animal signals. Anim Behav 42:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hauglund K, Hagen S, Lampe H (2006) Responses of domestic chicks (Gallus gallus domesticus) to multimodal aposematic signals. Behav Ecol 17:392–398Google Scholar
  13. Hebets EA, Papaj DR (2005) Complex signal function: developing a framework of testable hypotheses. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 57:197–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Higham JP, Hebets EA (2013) Multimodal communication [special issue]. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:1381–1539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hughes M (1996) The function of concurrent signals: visual and chemical communication in snapping shrimp. Anim Behav 52:247–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kulahci IG, Dornhaus A, Papaj DR (2008) Multimodal signals enhance decision making in foraging bumble-bees. Proc R Soc London B 275:797–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Masters WM (1979) Insect disturbance stridulation: its defensive role. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 5:187–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Narins P, Grabul D (2005) Cross-modal integration in a dart-poison frog. P Natl Acad Sci USA 102:2425–2429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Partan SR (2013) Ten unanswered questions in multimodal communication. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:1523–1539CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Partan S, Yelda S, Price V, Shimizu T (2005) Female pigeons, Columba livia, respond to multisensory audio/video playbacks of male courtship behaviour. Anim Behav 70:957–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pluta SR, Rowland BA, Stanford TR, Stein BE (2011) Alterations to multisensory and unisensory integration by stimulus competition. J Neurophysiol 106:3091–3101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ratcliffe JM, Nydam ML (2008) Multimodal warning signals for a multiple predator world. Nature 455:96–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, http://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
  24. Ross LA, Saint-Amour D, Leavitt VM, Javitt DC, Foxe JJ (2007) Do you see what I am saying? Exploring visual enhancement of speech comprehension in noisy environments. Cereb Cortex 17:1147–1153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Rowe C (1999) Receiver psychology and the evolution of multicomponent signals. Anim Behav 58:921–931CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Rowe C, Halpin C (2013) Why are warning displays multimodal? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:1425–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rubi TL, Stephens DW (2015) Should receivers follow multiple signal components? An economic perspective. Behav Ecol (published online, doi:  10.1093/beheco/arv121)
  28. Siddall EC, Marples NM (2008) Better to be bimodal: the interaction of color and odor on learning and memory. Behav Ecol 19:425–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stynoski JL, Noble VR (2011) To beg or to freeze: multimodal sensory integration directs behavior in a tadpole. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Taylor RC, Ryan MJ (2013) Interactions of multisensory components perceptually rescue túngara frog mating signals. Science 341:273–274CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Uetz GW, Roberts JA, Taylor PW (2009) Multimodal communication and mate choice in wolf spiders: female response to multimodal versus unimodal signals. Anim Behav 78:299–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. VanderSal ND, Hebets EA (2007) Cross-modal effects on learning: a seismic stimulus improves color discrimination learning in a jumping spider. J Exp Biol 210:3689–3695CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Wilson AJ, Dean M, Higham JP (2013) A game theoretic approach to multimodal communication. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:1399–1415CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MinnesotaSt PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations