Cited by 337Animal Vocal Communication and BehaviorMarine animal studies overviewLanguage and cultural evolution

Acoustic sequences in non‐human animals: a tutorial review and prospectus

Open access
Kershenbaum, Arik, Blumstein, Daniel T., Roch, Marie A., Akçay, Çağlar, Backus, Gregory, Bee, Mark A., Bohn, Kirsten, Cao, Yan +34 more·2016·Biological Reviews

Abstract

Animal acoustic communication often takes the form of complex sequences, made up of multiple distinct acoustic units. Apart from the well‐known example of birdsong, other animals such as insects, amphibians, and mammals (including bats, rodents, primates, and cetaceans) also generate complex acoustic sequences. Occasionally, such as with birdsong, the adaptive role of these sequences seems clear (e.g. mate attraction and territorial defence). More often however, researchers have only begun to characterise – let alone understand – the significance and meaning of acoustic sequences. Hypotheses abound, but there is little agreement as to how sequences should be defined and analysed. Our review aims to outline suitable methods for testing these hypotheses, and to describe the major limitations to our current and near‐future knowledge on questions of acoustic sequences. This review and prospectus is the result of a collaborative effort between 43 scientists from the fields of animal behaviour, ecology and evolution, signal processing, machine learning, quantitative linguistics, and information theory, who gathered for a 2013 workshop entitled, ‘A nalysing vocal sequences in animals’. Our goal is to present not just a review of the state of the art, but to propose a methodological framework that summarises what we suggest are the best practices for research in this field, across taxa and across disciplines. We also provide a tutorial‐style introduction to some of the most promising algorithmic approaches for analysing sequences. We divide our review into three sections: identifying the distinct units of an acoustic sequence, describing the different ways that information can be contained within a sequence, and analysing the structure of that sequence. Each of these sections is further subdivided to address the key questions and approaches in that area. We propose a uniform, systematic, and comprehensive approach to studying sequences, with the goal of clarifying research terms used in different fields, and facilitating collaboration and comparative studies. Allowing greater interdisciplinary collaboration will facilitate the investigation of many important questions in the evolution of communication and sociality.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/brv.12160

Cites

423 of 423 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Standardising methodologies will avoid confusion and enable meaningful comparisons across species, populations, sexes, developmental stages, and behavioural contexts.

    “Standardising methodologies will avoid confusion and enable meaningful comparisons across species, populations, sexes, developmental stages, and behavioural contexts (Broughton 1963; Ruxton and Schaefer 2011; Kershenbaum et al. 2016).”

    From Roars, Rumbles, and Resonance: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Crocodylian Acoustic Signals (2026) · cites this paper as Kershenbaum et al. 2016

    The Abstract (page unavailable) proposes a uniform approach to clarify terminology and facilitate comparative studies across taxa, supporting the claim’s general point. The Introduction likewise describes bridging inconsistent terminology across disciplines and taxa. The paper does not specifically say that standardisation will enable comparisons across populations, sexes, developmental stages, and behavioural contexts. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Differences in acoustic signalling syntax may allow species identification and potentially contain contextual, individual and/or behavioural information.

    “Differences in acoustic signalling syntax (i.e., the sequence of signal elements) may allow species identification and potentially contain contextual, individual and/or behavioural information (Garrick et al. 1978; Kershenbaum et al. 2016).”

    From Roars, Rumbles, and Resonance: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Crocodylian Acoustic Signals (2026) · cites this paper as Kershenbaum et al. 2016

    Section VI(3), “How do individual differences in acoustic sequences arise?”, says variation in syntax may reflect aggression and that phrase sequences can distinguish individual birds. Section IV(7) describes different call sequences carrying different meanings, supporting the possibility of contextual or behavioural information. Section VI(4) discusses a possible role for sequence syntax in speciation, but does not establish that syntactic differences allow species identification. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Conceptual work on sequence structure, mammalian source-filter theory, and signal embedding in social networks provides a theoretical foundation for interpreting meaning in animal vocalizations.

    “Conceptual work on sequence structure (Kershenbaum et al. 2016), mammalian source–filter theory (Taylor and Reby 2010), and signal embedding in social networks (Seyfarth and Cheney 2017; Snijders and Naguib 2017) provide a theoretical foundation.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 424 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Jurafsky D Martin JH 2000 Speech & language processing Pearson Education India
  2. Marler P 1977 The structure of animal communication sounds Recognition of Complex Acoustic Signals Bullock TH 17 35 Springer Verlag Berlin
  3. Martin WP 1972 Evolution of vocalization in the genus Bufo Evolution in the GenusBufo Blair WF 37 70 University of Texas Press Austin, TX
  4. Newman M 2009 Networks: An Introduction Oxford University Press Oxford
  5. Stoddard P 1996 Vocal recognition of neighbors by territorial passerines Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds Kroodsma DE Miller EL 356 374 Cornell University Press Ithaca, New York

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kershenbaum, A., Blumstein, D. T., Roch, M. A., Akçay, Ç., Backus, G., Bee, M. A., Bohn, K., Cao, Y., Carter, G., Cäsar, C., Coen, M., DeRuiter, S. L., Doyle, L., Edelman, S., Ferrer‐i‐Cancho, R., Freeberg, T. M., Garland, E. C., Gustison, M., Harley, H. E., Huetz, C., Hughes, M., Hyland Bruno, J., Ilany, A., Jin, D. Z., Johnson, M., Ju, C., Karnowski, J., Lohr, B., Manser, M. B., McCowan, B., Mercado, E., Narins, P. M., Piel, A., Rice, M., Salmi, R., Sasahara, K., Sayigh, L., Shiu, Y., Taylor, C., Vallejo, E. E., Waller, S., & Zamora‐Gutierrez, V.
Affiliations
  • National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • San Diego State University (US)
  • Cornell University (US)
  • North Carolina State University (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Florida International University (US)
  • The University of Texas at Dallas (US)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • University of St Andrews (GB)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (US)
  • Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (ES)
  • University of Tennessee System (US)
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • New College of Florida (US)
  • Université Paris-Sud (FR)
  • College of Charleston (US)
  • Department of Psychology Hunter College and the Graduate Center, The City University of New York 365 Fifth Avenue New York NY 10016 U.S.A.
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • Marquette University (US)
  • City University of New York (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore County (US)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
  • Division of Biological Anthropology University of Cambridge Pembroke Street Cambridge CB2 3QG U.K.
  • California State University, San Marcos (US)
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • Nagoya University (JP)
  • Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (US)
  • Tecnológico de Monterrey (MX)
  • Montana State University (US)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Kershenbaum, Arik
Venue
Biological Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-11-26
Volume
91
Issue
1
Pages
13-52
ISSN
  • 0006-3231 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-7931
  • 1469-185X
OpenAlex
W1514601846
Cited by
337
References
424
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Liverpool John Moores University (acceptedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • UPCommons institutional repository (Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (acceptedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
  • e-Publications@Marquette (Marquette University) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • RECERCAT (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • St Andrews Research Repository (St Andrews Research Repository) (submittedVersion)
  • Tokyo Tech Research Repository (Tokyo Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • NSF (DEB-1119660, IOS-0842759)
  • NIH (R01DC009582)
  • ONR (N0001411IP20086)
  • NOPP (ONR/BOEM) (N00014-11-1-0697)
  • U.S. Office of Naval Research
  • Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (BASMATI (TIN2011-27479-C04-03))
  • National Research Council Postdoctoral Fellowship
  • CONACYT, Mexico (I010/214/2012)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology › Animal Vocal Communication and Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Marine animal studies overview
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Language and cultural evolution
Keywords
animal vocal communication, acoustic unit, sequence structure, bird song, evolution of communication, sociality, interdisciplinary research framework
MeSH terms
Acoustics, Animals, Markov Chains, Models, Biological, Perception, Vocalization, Animal

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