Conditioned vocalization in the budgerigar

The sound and the fury--bees hiss when expecting danger

Honey bees are important model systems for the investigation of learning and memory and for a better understanding of the neuronal basics of brain function. Honey bees also possess a rich repertoire of tones and sounds, from queen piping and quacking to worker hissing and buzzing. In this study, we tested whether the worker bees' sounds can be used as a measure of learning. We therefore conditioned honey bees aversively to odours in a walking arena and recorded both their sound production and their movement. Bees were presented with two odours, one of which was paired with an electric shock. Initially, the bees did not produce any sound upon odour presentation, but responded to the electric shock with a strong hissing response. After learning, many bees hissed at the presentation of the learned odour, while fewer bees hissed upon presentation of another odour. We also found that hissing and movement away from the conditioned odour are independent behaviours that can co-occur but do not necessarily do so. Our data suggest that hissing can be used as a readout for learning after olfactory conditioning, but that there are large individual differences between bees concerning their hissing reaction. The basis for this variability and the possible ecological relevance of the bees' hissing remain to be investigated.

Control of vocal production in budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus): selective reinforcement, call differentiation, and stimulus control

Budgerigars were trained to make a specific call using a real-time automated call recognition system and food reward. Calls produced by the bird were followed by food only if they were similar enough to a template call. The selective reinforcement of a particular call type increased the similarity of the bird's call to the template and decreased overall call variation, including call duration. After the birds' performance reached asymptote (i.e. the calls became matched to the template with no further increase in similarity), a call differentiation procedure was introduced. This procedure consisted of both matching-to-template and non-matching-to-template trials. In order to receive food in non-matching-to-template trials, the birds had to produce a call that was sufficiently different from the template call. This procedure resulted in a `new' call emerging from the first template call which occurred gradually rather than abruptly. In the third procedure, called two-template matching training, the birds had to match their calls to the first template call (signaled by illuminating the left LED) and to the second template call (signaled by illuminating the right LED). The calls produced in both first and second template call trials were well controlled by the position of the LED. These results extend the effects of selective reinforcement, differential reinforcement, and stimulus control on response topographies to the domain of vocalizations in budgerigars.

Operant and nonoperant vocal responding in the mynah: Complex schedule control and deprivation-induced responding

Several recent studies have been concerned with operant responses that are also affected by nonoperant factors, (e.g., biological constraints, innate behavior patterns, respondent processes). The major reason for studying mynah vocal responding concerned the special relation of avian vocalizations to nonoperant emotional and reflexive systems. The research strategy was to evaluate operant and nonoperant control by comparing the schedule control obtained with the vocal response to that characteristic of the motor responses of other animals. We selected single, multiple, and chain schedules that ordinarily produce disparate response rates at predictable times. In multiple schedules with one component where vocal responding ("Awk") was reinforced with food (fixed-ratio or fixed-interval schedule) and one where the absence of vocal responding was reinforced (differential reinforcement of other behavior), response rates never exceeded 15 responses per minute, but clear schedule differences developed in response rate and pause time. Nonoperant vocal responding was evident when responding endured across 50 extinction sessions at 25% to 40% of the rate during reinforcement. The "enduring extinction responding" was largely deprivation induced, because the operant-level of naive mynahs under food deprivation was comparable in magnitude, but without deprivation the operant level was much lower. Food deprivation can induce vocal responding, but the relatively precise schedule control indicated that operant contingencies predominate when they are introduced.

Call usage learning in gray seals (Halichoerus grypus)

Call usage learning can be demonstrated on 4 different levels: signaling on command, signaling and refraining from signaling on command, responding to a trained stimulus with a signal from a specific signal class, and responding to the playback of any untrained stimulus with one from the same signal class. Two young gray seals (Halichoerus grypus) were trained successfully to demonstrate the first 2 levels. They also learned to respond to 9 moan stimuli and 9 growl stimuli with vocalizations of the same class (Level 3). However, novel moan and growl stimuli tended to elicit growls. This casts doubt on the possibility that gray seals can reach the 4th level, but it demonstrates that they are capable of the first 3 levels of usage learning.

Cognitive and communicative capacities of Grey parrots — implications for the enrichment of many species

Much of my research has been devoted to determining the cognitive and communicative abilities of Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus), but other companion animals and those in captivity in Zoos also have considerable capacities that are often under-utilised in such settings. Many such animals are left to their own devices for large parts of the day; their boredom may translate into unsuitable behaviour patterns. In order to address this problem, my colleagues and I began to devise various computer-based ‘toys’ that would not only provide enrichment in the sense of relieving boredom and reproducing situations somewhat like the challenges faced by animals in the wild on a daily basis, but also would help us determine the extent of these animals’ cognitive capacities. Some of these systems allow remote interactions between owners and their pets and others might be adapted for animal-animal interactions. In this paper I will describe these projects, their aims, and our limited progress.

The operant control of vocalization in the dog

Control over the vocal responses of three dogs was established using operant-conditioning procedures. Several points of interest were observed in the data. First, fixed-ratio schedules of reinforcement generated a vocal response topography which was similar in detail to that of a "motor" bar-nosing response. Second, vocal responding was brought under the control of external visual stimuli as a result of differential reinforcement. Third, good stimulus control was maintained on a multiple schedule containing a vocal-response component and a bar-response component. Fourth, the stimulus control on the multiple schedule transferred with minimal disruption to a chain schedule requiring a sequence of 10 bar responses followed by 10 vocal responses. Fifth, because vocal and bar responses are not mutually exclusive, concurrent responding tended to develop on the chain schedule. These results were discussed with reference to the advisability of applying the terms operant and respondent to unconditioned behavior, and, particularly, to unconditioned verbal behavior.

Operant control of vocal behavior in the cat

EVIDENCE OF OPERANT CONTROL OF VOCAL BEHAVIOR IN THE CAT IS PRESENTED: (1) On mult FR 12 S(Delta) schedule, cats miaowed rapidly during periods of S(D) and much less or not at all during S(Delta). (2) This control was re-established following reversal of stimuli. (3) The frequency distribution of response durations was shifted to both shorter and longer values by the differential reinforcement of shorter or longer response durations respectively. Since both the frequency and duration of vocal responses were shown to be under the control of the schedule of reinforcement, it is concluded that at least some of the vocal behavior of the cat is susceptible to operant control.

Control of vocal intensity in budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus): differential reinforcement of vocal intensity and the Lombard effect

Call production in budgerigars was studied using operant conditioning. In several experiments, budgerigars were reinforced with food for producing calls that were above or below a criterion level of intensity. This differential reinforcement procedure was successful in controlling vocal intensity in both directions showing that the intensity with which budgerigars produce vocalizations is under voluntary control. In additional experiments, call intensity maintained by food reinforcement was measured both in the quiet and in the presence of various levels of broadband noise. Call intensity in budgerigars increased significantly in noise, paralleling the well-known Lombard effect in humans which is the reflexive increase in speech intensity during communication in noise. Call intensity was measured in broadband noise and in a notched noise (no energy between 1.5 and 4.5 kHz) with the same overall level. Results show that noise in the spectral region of contact calls is most effective in causing an increase in vocal intensity. In aggregate, these experiments show that budgerigars have voluntary control over the intensive aspect of their vocalizations, that they normally monitor their vocal output though external auditory feedback, and, like humans, they exhibit the Lombard effect.

Differential vocalization in budgerigars: towards an experimental analysis of naming

In Experiment 1, 3 budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus) were trained with food reinforcement to make low- or high-frequency calls in response to different color stimuli, C1 and C2 (a color-naming task), using a gradual response-differentiation procedure and an automatic call-recognition system. Thus, a call within a certain frequency band was reinforced in the presence of C1 ("C1 call"), and a call within a different band was reinforced in the presence of C2 ("C2 call"). In Experiment 2, all 3 budgerigars were trained in a form-to-color matching-to-sample task, alternating trial by trial with either the color-naming task (2 birds) or an identity color matching-to-sample task (1 bird). Sample stimuli for the new matching-to-sample task were forms (F1 or F2) and comparisons were the same two colors (C1 and C2). Given Sample F1 or F2, birds had to make a call to produce Comparison Pair C1 and C2. With F1 as the sample, a peck on C1 was reinforced; with F2 as the sample, a peck on C2 was reinforced. Although no particular call was specified in the presence of F1 and F2, 2 birds made the C1 call in the presence of F1 and the C2 call in the presence of F2. In Experiment 3, the bird that failed to match form and color calls in Experiment 2 and another bird were first trained in a color-to-form matching-to-sample task: C1 to F3 and C2 to F4. In this task, to produce the comparison pair of forms, a high call (or low for the other bird) was required in the presence of C1, and a low call (or high) was required in the presence of C2. Both birds were then trained with an identity matching-to-sample task in which sample and comparison stimuli were the same two forms, F3 and F4. Trials on the identity task alternated with the color-to-form trials. Although no particular call was required in the presence of Samples F3 and F4, both birds came to make the C1 call in the presence of F3 and the C2 call in the presence of F4. Our technique promises to be useful for the study of emergent vocal relations in budgerigars and other animals.

Can Animals Talk?

Speech is defined as operant vocal behavior reinforced through the mediation of other organisms. Attempts to control animal vocalizations by operant conditioning are therefore reviewed. Both laboratory studies and informal attempts are examined. Some evidence of successful control is found, and this evidence affords examples of genuine, if rudimentary, speech in animals. It is, therefore, concluded that man's capacity to talk is not a unique ability that demarcates him from the rest of the animal kingdom.