Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alvarado JC, Vaughan JW, Stanford TR, Stein BE (2007) Multisensory versus unisensory integration: contrasting modes in the superior colliculus. J Neurophysiol 97:3193–3205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown SG, Boettner GH, Yack JE (2007) Clicking caterpillars: acoustic aposematism in Antheraea polyphemus and other Bombycoidea. J Exp Biol 210:993–1005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Candolin U (2003) The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol Rev Camb Philos 78:575–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen S, Stebbins W, Moody D (1978) Audibility thresholds of the Blue Jay. Auk 95:563–568

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gingras G, Rowland BA, Stein BE (2009) The differing impact of multisensory and unisensory integration on behavior. J Neurosci 29:4897–4902

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guilford T, Dawkins MS (1991) Receiver psychology and the evolution of animal signals. Anim Behav 42:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higham JP, Hebets EA (2013) Multimodal communication [special issue]. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:1381–1539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes M (1996) The function of concurrent signals: visual and chemical communication in snapping shrimp. Anim Behav 52:247–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulahci IG, Dornhaus A, Papaj DR (2008) Multimodal signals enhance decision making in foraging bumble-bees. Proc R Soc London B 275:797–802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masters WM (1979) Insect disturbance stridulation: its defensive role. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 5:187–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narins P, Grabul D (2005) Cross-modal integration in a dart-poison frog. P Natl Acad Sci USA 102:2425–2429

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Partan SR (2013) Ten unanswered questions in multimodal communication. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:1523–1539

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pluta SR, Rowland BA, Stanford TR, Stein BE (2011) Alterations to multisensory and unisensory integration by stimulus competition. J Neurophysiol 106:3091–3101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe JM, Nydam ML (2008) Multimodal warning signals for a multiple predator world. Nature 455:96–99

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe C (1999) Receiver psychology and the evolution of multicomponent signals. Anim Behav 58:921–931

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe C, Halpin C (2013) Why are warning displays multimodal? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:1425–1439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stynoski JL, Noble VR (2011) To beg or to freeze: multimodal sensory integration directs behavior in a tadpole. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66:191–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor RC, Ryan MJ (2013) Interactions of multisensory components perceptually rescue túngara frog mating signals. Science 341:273–274

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson AJ, Dean M, Higham JP (2013) A game theoretic approach to multimodal communication. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:1399–1415

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tricia L. Rubi.

Ethics declarations

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).

Additional information

Communicated by N. Clayton

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-016-2061-y

Keywords

Navigation