CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 134

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The evolution of vocal learning

Nowicki, Stephen, Searcy, William A·2014·Current Opinion in Neurobiology
DOI 10.1016/j.conb.2014.06.007
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Vocal learning, in which animals modify their vocalizations to imitate those of others, has evolved independently in scattered lineages of birds and mammals. Comparative evidence supports two hypotheses for the selective advantages leading to the origin of vocal learning. The sexual selection hypothesis proposes that vocal learning evolves to allow expansion of vocal repertoires in response to mating preferences for more complex vocalizations. The information-sharing hypothesis also proposes that vocal learning evolves to allow expansion of vocal repertoires, but in this case in response to kin selection favoring sharing of information among relatives.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.conb.2014.06.007

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Language originated to facilitate communication amongst close kin.

    “Fitch (2004) has argued that language originated to facilitate communication amongst close kin (Fitch, 2004, see also Nowicki & Searcy, 2014; Smit, 2014), and I endorse this position.”

    From The origins of language in teaching (2017) · cites this paper as Nowicki & Searcy, 2014

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 50

  1. Janik, 1997, Vocal learning in mammals, Adv Stud Behav, 26, 59, 10.1016/S0065-3454(08)60377-0 · DOI
  2. Jarvis, 2004, Learned birdsong and the neurobiology of human language, Ann NY Acad Sci, 1016, 749, 10.1196/annals.1298.038 · DOI
  3. Egnor, 2004, A paradox in the evolution of primate vocal learning, Trends Neurosci, 27, 649, 10.1016/j.tins.2004.08.009 · DOI
  4. Janik, 2000, The different roles of social learning in vocal communication, Anim Behav, 60, 1, 10.1006/anbe.2000.1410 · DOI
  5. Searcy, 1986, Sexual selection and the evolution of song, Ann Rev Ecol Syst, 17, 507, 10.1146/annurev.es.17.110186.002451 · DOI
  6. Beecher, 2005, Functional aspects of song learning in songbirds, Trends Ecol Evol, 20, 143, 10.1016/j.tree.2005.01.004 · DOI
  7. Marler, 1987, A sensitive period for song acquisition in the song sparrow, Melospiza melodia: a case of age-limited learning, Ethology, 76, 89, 10.1111/j.1439-0310.1987.tb00675.x · DOI
  8. Beecher, 1994, Correlation of song learning and territory establishment strategies in the song sparrow, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 91, 1450, 10.1073/pnas.91.4.1450 · DOI
  9. Marler, 1982, Developmental overproduction and selective attrition: new processes in the epigenesis of birdsong, Dev Psychobiol, 15, 369, 10.1002/dev.420150409 · DOI
  10. Nottebohm, 1972, The origins of vocal learning, Am Nat, 106, 116, 10.1086/282756 · DOI
  11. Kroodsma, 1985, Vocal “dialects” in Nuttall's white-crowned sparrow, Curr Ornithol, 2, 103, 10.1007/978-1-4613-2385-3_3 · DOI
  12. Podos, 2007, The evolution of geographic variation in birdsong, Adv Stud Behav, 37, 403, 10.1016/S0065-3454(07)37009-5 · DOI
  13. Soma, 2011, Rethinking birdsong evolution: meta-analysis of the relationship between song complexity and reproductive success, Behav Ecol, 22, 363, 10.1093/beheco/arq219 · DOI
  14. Byers, 2009, Female mate choice and songbird song repertoires, Anim Behav, 77, 13, 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.10.003 · DOI
  15. Woodgate, 2012, Male song structure predicts reproductive success in a wild zebra finch population, Anim Behav, 83, 773, 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.12.027 · DOI
  16. Nowicki, 1998, Song learning, early nutrition and sexual selection in songbirds, Am Zool, 38, 179, 10.1093/icb/38.1.179 · DOI
  17. Schmidt, 2013, Early-life stress affects song complexity, song learning, and volume of the brain nucleus RA in adult male song sparrows, Anim Behav, 86, 25, 10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.03.036 · DOI
  18. Searcy, 1992, Song repertoire and mate choice in birds, Am Zool, 32, 71, 10.1093/icb/32.1.71 · DOI
  19. Basolo, 1990, Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish, Science, 250, 808, 10.1126/science.250.4982.808 · DOI
  20. Ryan, 1993, Sexual selection and signal evolution: the ghost of biases past, Philos Trans R Soc Lond B, 340, 187, 10.1098/rstb.1993.0057 · DOI
  21. Wiley, 1978, Physical constraints on acoustic communication in the atmosphere: implications for the evolution of animal vocalizations, Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 3, 69, 10.1007/BF00300047 · DOI
  22. Marten, 1977, Sound transmission and its significance for animal vocalization, Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 2, 271, 10.1007/BF00299740 · DOI
  23. Hansen, 1979, Vocal learning: its role in adapting sound structures to long-distance propagation, and a hypothesis on its evolution, Anim Behav, 27, 1270, 10.1016/0003-3472(79)90073-3 · DOI
  24. Peters, 2012, Songbirds learn songs least degraded by environmental transmission, Biol Lett, 8, 736, 10.1098/rsbl.2012.0446 · DOI
  25. Slabbekoorn, 2006, Cities change the songs of birds, Curr Biol, 16, 2326, 10.1016/j.cub.2006.10.008 · DOI
  26. Derryberry, 2009, Ecology shapes birdsong evolution: variation in morphology and habitat explains variation in white-crowned sparrow song, Am Nat, 174, 24, 10.1086/599298 · DOI
  27. Rios-Chelen, 2012, The learning advantage: bird species that learn their songs show a tighter adjustment of song to noisy environments than those that do not learn, J Evol Biol, 25, 2171, 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2012.02597.x · DOI
  28. Boncoraglio, 2007, Habitat structure and the evolution of bird song: a meta-analysis of the evidence for the acoustic adaptation hypothesis, Funct Ecol, 21, 134, 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2006.01207.x · DOI
  29. Nemeth, 2010, Birds and anthropogenic noise: are urban songs adaptive?, Am Nat, 176, 465, 10.1086/656275 · DOI
  30. Jackendoff, 1999, Possible stages in the evolution of the language capacity, Trends Cogn Sci, 3, 272, 10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01333-9 · DOI
  31. Tyack, 1981, Interactions between singing Hawaiian humpback whales and conspecifics nearby, Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 8, 105, 10.1007/BF00300822 · DOI
  32. Caldwell, 1965, Individualized whistle contours in bottlenosed dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), Nature, 207, 434, 10.1038/207434a0 · DOI
  33. Fripp, 2005, Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) calves appear to model their signature whistles on the signature whistles of community members, Anim Cogn, 8, 17, 10.1007/s10071-004-0225-z · DOI
  34. Janik, 1998, Context-specific use suggests that bottlenose dolphin signature whistles are cohesion calls, Anim Behav, 56, 829, 10.1006/anbe.1998.0881 · DOI
  35. King, 2013, Vocal copying of individually distinctive signature whistles in bottlenose dolphins, Proc R Soc Lond B, 280, 20130053
  36. King, 2013, Bottlenose dolphins can use learned vocal labels to address each other, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 110, 13216, 10.1073/pnas.1304459110 · DOI
  37. Berg, 2012, Vertical transmission of learned signatures in a wild parrot, Proc R Soc Lond B, 279, 585
  38. Farabaugh, 1994, Vocal plasticity in budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus): evidence for social factors in the learning of contact calls, J Comp Psychol, 108, 81, 10.1037/0735-7036.108.1.81 · DOI
  39. Balsby, 2011, Vocal similarity and familiarity determine response to potential flockmates in orange-fronted conures (Psittacidae), Anim Behav, 81, 983, 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.01.034 · DOI
  40. Berg, 2011, Contact calls are used for individual mate recognition in free-ranging green-rumped parrotlets, Forpus passerinus, Anim Behav, 81, 241, 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.10.012 · DOI
  41. Scarl, 2009, Rapid vocal convegence in an Australian cockatoo, the galah Elophus roseicapillus, Anim Behav, 77, 1019, 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.11.024 · DOI
  42. Mundinger, 1970, Vocal imitation and indvidual recognition of finch calls, Science, 168, 480, 10.1126/science.168.3930.480 · DOI
  43. Mammen, 1981, Individual differences and within-flock convergence in chickadee calls, Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 9, 179, 10.1007/BF00302935 · DOI
  44. Beer, 1969, Laughing gull chicks: recognition of their parents’ voices, Science, 166, 1030, 10.1126/science.166.3908.1030 · DOI
  45. Aubin, 2002, How to vocally identify kin in a crowd: the penguin model, Adv Study Behav, 31, 243, 10.1016/S0065-3454(02)80010-9 · DOI
  46. Budka, 2013, Neighbour-stranger call discrimination in a nocturnal rail species, the corncrake Crex crex, J Ornithol, 154, 685, 10.1007/s10336-013-0933-8 · DOI
  47. Gaunt, 1994, Song learning as evidenced from song sharing in two hummingbird species (Colibri coruscans and C. thalassinus), Auk, 111, 87, 10.2307/4088508 · DOI
  48. Araya-Salas, 2013, Open-ended song learning in a hummingbird, Biol Lett, 9, 20130625, 10.1098/rsbl.2013.0625 · DOI
  49. Boughman, 1998, Vocal learning by greater spear-nosed bats, Proc R Soc Lond B, 265, 227, 10.1098/rspb.1998.0286 · DOI
  50. Knörnschild, 2012, Learned vocal signatures in the polygynous bat Saccopteryx bilineata, Anim Behav, 84, 761, 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.06.029 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Nowicki, S., & Searcy, W. A.
Venue
Current Opinion in Neurobiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-10
Volume
28
Pages
48-53
ISSN
0959-4388
DOI
10.1016/j.conb.2014.06.007
Cited by
134
References
3
Language
en
Licence
Funders
National Science Foundation (IOS-1144991, IOS-1144995)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review