Non-human animals detect the rhythmic structure of a familiar tune

Abstract

The musical motives of a song emerge from the temporal arrangement of discrete tones. These tones normally have few durational values, and are organized in structured groups to create metrical patterns. In the present study we show that the ability to detect the rhythmic structure of a song, while ignoring surface changes, is also present in other species. We familiarized rats (Rattus norvegicus) with an excerpt of the Happy Birthday song. During test, we presented the animals with (i) the same excerpt of the familiarization, (ii) a constant-pitch version of the excerpt that reduced melodic intervals to only one tone (i.e., isotonic) but preserved rhythmic structure, and (iii) a rhythmically scrambled version of the excerpt that preserved the melodic intervals. The animals discriminated the rhythmically scrambled version from the versions that preserved the original rhythm. This demonstrates that rats were sensitive to at least some parts of the rhythmic structure of the tune. Together with previous findings, the present set of results suggests that the emergence of rhythmic musical universals might be based on principles shared with other species.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Bateson, P. P. G., & Jaeckel, J. B. (1976). Chicks' preferences for familiar and novel conspicuous objects after different periods of exposure. Animal Behavior, 24, 386-390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Celma-Miralles, A., & Toro, J. M. (2020). Regularity discrimination in rats (Rattus norvegicus) and humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 134, 3. https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000202

  3. Crespo-Bojorque, P., & Toro, J. M. (2016). Processing advantages for consonance: A comparison between rats (Rattus norvegicus) and humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 130, 97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. d’Amato, M. R., & Salmon, D. P. (1982). Tune discrimination in monkeys (Cebus apella) and in rats. Animal Learning and Behavior, 10(2), 126-134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. d’Amato, M. R., & Salmon, D. P. (1984). Processing of complex auditory stimuli (tunes) by rats and monkeys (Cebus apella). Animal Learning and Behavior, 12, 184-194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. de la Mora, D., Nespor, M., & Toro, J. M. (2013). Do humans and nonhuman animals share the grouping principles of the iambic–trochaic law? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, 92-100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fay, R. R. (1988) Hearing in vertebrates: a psychophysics databook. Hill-Fay Associates; Winnetka IL.

  8. Fitch, W. T. (2006). The biology and evolution of music: A comparative perspective. Cognition, 100, 173-215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hauser, M. D., & McDermott, J. (2003). The evolution of the music faculty: A comparative perspective. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hoeschele, M., Merchant, H., Kikuchi, Y., Hattori, Y., & ten Cate, C. (2015). Searching for the origins of musicality across species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 370: 20140094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Honing, H., ten Cate, C., Peretz, I., & Trehub, S. E. (2015). Without it no music: cognition, biology and evolution of musicality. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 370: 20140088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kalat, J. W. (1974). Taste salience depends on novelty, not concentration, in taste-aversion learning in the rat. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 86, 47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kotz, S. A., Ravignani, A., & Fitch, W. T. (2018). The evolution of rhythm processing. Trends in Cognitive Science, 22, 896-910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Okaichi, Y., & Okaichi, H. (2001). Music discrimination by rats. Japanese Journal of Animal Psychology, 51, 29-34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Otsuka, Y., Yanagi, J., & Watanabe, S. (2009). Discriminative and reinforcing stimulus properties of music for rats. Behavioral Processes, 80, 121-127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pisula, W., & Siegel, J. (2005). Exploratory behavior as a function of environmental novelty and complexity in male and female rats. Psychology Reports, 97, 631-638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pisula, W., Stryjek, R., & Nalecz-Tolak, A. (2006). Response to novelty of various types in laboratory rats. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, 66, 235.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Poli, M., & Previde, E. P. (1991). Discrimination of musical stimuli by rats (Rattus norvegicus). International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 5.

  19. Santolin, C., Rosa-Salva, O., Vallortigara, G., & Regolin, L. (2016). Unsupervised statistical learning in newly hatched chicks. Current Biology, 26, R1218-R1220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Savage, P. E., Brown, S., Sakai, E., & Currie, T. E. (2015). Statistical universals reveal the structures and functions of human music. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(29), 8987-8992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Slabbekoorn, H., & Ten Cate, C. (1999). Collared dove responses to playback: slaves to the rhythm. Ethology, 105, 377-391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. ten Cate, C., Spierings, M., Hubert, J., & Honing, H. (2016). Can birds perceive rhythmic patterns? A review and experiments on a songbird and a parrot species. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 730.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Toro, J. M., & Nespor, M. (2015). Experience-dependent emergence of a grouping bias. Biology Letters, 11, 20150374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Welker, W. I., & King, W. A. (1962). Effects of stimulus novelty on gnawing and eating by rats. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 55, 838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wilson, M., & Cook, P. F. (2016). Rhythmic entrainment: why humans want to, fireflies can’t help it, pet birds try, and sea lions have to be bribed. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 1647-1659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Aina Viles Sans for her careful help with the rats and Paola Crespo Bojorque for her insights into the familiarization procedure.

Ethics approval

All experimental procedures were approved by the ethics committee from the Universitat Pompeu Fabra and the Generalitat de Catalunya (protocol number 9068).

Data accessibility

The data supporting this article have been included as Online Supplementary Material.

Open Practices Statement

The data and materials for the experiment are available as Online Supplementary Materials, and the experiment was not preregistered.

Funding

This work was supported by a grant from the BIAL foundation (reference 13/18) and by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (MEC) FPI grant BES-2014-070547.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

ACM and JMT designed the study. ACM ran the experiment and analyzed the data. ACM and JMT wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandre Celma-Miralles.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 171 kb)

ESM 2

(WAV 444 kb)

ESM 3

(WAV 444 kb)

ESM 4

(WAV 444 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Celma-Miralles, A., Toro, J.M. Non-human animals detect the rhythmic structure of a familiar tune. Psychon Bull Rev 27, 694–699 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01739-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Temporal perception
  • Song discrimination
  • Rhythm
  • Comparative cognition
  • Rats