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.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Alvarado JC, Vaughan JW, Stanford TR, Stein BE (2007) Multisensory versus unisensory integration: contrasting modes in the superior colliculus. J Neurophysiol 97:3193–3205
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 160:683–691
Brown SG, Boettner GH, Yack JE (2007) Clicking caterpillars: acoustic aposematism in Antheraea polyphemus and other Bombycoidea. J Exp Biol 210:993–1005
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 96:713–718
Candolin U (2003) The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol Rev Camb Philos 78:575–595
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:e1002165
Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
Cohen S, Stebbins W, Moody D (1978) Audibility thresholds of the Blue Jay. Auk 95:563–568
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 39:175–191
Gingras G, Rowland BA, Stein BE (2009) The differing impact of multisensory and unisensory integration on behavior. J Neurosci 29:4897–4902
Guilford T, Dawkins MS (1991) Receiver psychology and the evolution of animal signals. Anim Behav 42:1–14
Hauglund K, Hagen S, Lampe H (2006) Responses of domestic chicks (Gallus gallus domesticus) to multimodal aposematic signals. Behav Ecol 17:392–398
Hebets EA, Papaj DR (2005) Complex signal function: developing a framework of testable hypotheses. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 57:197–214
Higham JP, Hebets EA (2013) Multimodal communication [special issue]. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:1381–1539
Hughes M (1996) The function of concurrent signals: visual and chemical communication in snapping shrimp. Anim Behav 52:247–257
Kulahci IG, Dornhaus A, Papaj DR (2008) Multimodal signals enhance decision making in foraging bumble-bees. Proc R Soc London B 275:797–802
Masters WM (1979) Insect disturbance stridulation: its defensive role. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 5:187–200
Narins P, Grabul D (2005) Cross-modal integration in a dart-poison frog. P Natl Acad Sci USA 102:2425–2429
Partan SR (2013) Ten unanswered questions in multimodal communication. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:1523–1539
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 70:957–966
Pluta SR, Rowland BA, Stanford TR, Stein BE (2011) Alterations to multisensory and unisensory integration by stimulus competition. J Neurophysiol 106:3091–3101
Ratcliffe JM, Nydam ML (2008) Multimodal warning signals for a multiple predator world. Nature 455:96–99
R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, http://www.R-project.org/
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 17:1147–1153
Rowe C (1999) Receiver psychology and the evolution of multicomponent signals. Anim Behav 58:921–931
Rowe C, Halpin C (2013) Why are warning displays multimodal? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:1425–1439
Rubi TL, Stephens DW (2015) Should receivers follow multiple signal components? An economic perspective. Behav Ecol (published online, doi: 10.1093/beheco/arv121)
Siddall EC, Marples NM (2008) Better to be bimodal: the interaction of color and odor on learning and memory. Behav Ecol 19:425–432
Stynoski JL, Noble VR (2011) To beg or to freeze: multimodal sensory integration directs behavior in a tadpole. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:191–199
Taylor RC, Ryan MJ (2013) Interactions of multisensory components perceptually rescue túngara frog mating signals. Science 341:273–274
Uetz GW, Roberts JA, Taylor PW (2009) Multimodal communication and mate choice in wolf spiders: female response to multimodal versus unimodal signals. Anim Behav 78:299–305
VanderSal ND, Hebets EA (2007) Cross-modal effects on learning: a seismic stimulus improves color discrimination learning in a jumping spider. J Exp Biol 210:3689–3695
Wilson AJ, Dean M, Higham JP (2013) A game theoretic approach to multimodal communication. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:1399–1415
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.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
All housing and experimental procedures were approved by the University of Minnesota Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (protocol #1109A04421).
Communicated by N. Clayton
About this article
Cite this article
Rubi, T.L., Stephens, D.W. Does multimodality per se improve receiver performance? An explicit comparison of multimodal versus unimodal complex signals in a learned signal following task. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 70, 409–416 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-016-2061-y
- Complex signals
- Multimodal signals