Categorical rhythmic patterns do not predict song preference in zebra finches
Maiolini, M.; Spierings, M.
Show abstract
Categorical rhythmic patterns are fundamental features found in language and music across cultures. In humans, these rhythmic patterns occur in both vocal production and perceptual preference, highlighting a link between rhythmic production and preference. Categorical rhythmic patterns have recently been identified in animal vocalisations too, but whether rhythm production is linked with rhythmic preferences in non-human animals remains unclear. Within this context, zebra finches (Taeniopygia castanotis) are of particular interest, as both sexes develop a song preference, and their song has been suggested to exhibit an isochronous temporal structure. Here, we tested for the first time whether zebra finches prefer songs containing discrete rhythmic patterns, using operant preference tests with either two or four rhythmic patterns. Our results show that no categorical rhythmic pattern was consistently preferred across the population, although responses varied among individuals. These findings indicate that categorical rhythmic patterns are unlikely to be a primary driver of song preference in zebra finches. Together with previous work in other vocal-learning birds, our results suggest that preferences for categorical rhythmic patterns may not be universal and could instead reflect species-specific features of vocal displays rather than the rhythmic categories characteristic of human music.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Piglets vocally express the anticipation of (pseudo)-social contexts in their grunts 92%
- Inhibitory cell populations depend on age, sex, and prior experience across a neural network for Critical Period learning 91%
- Shared transcriptional responses to con- and heterospecific behavioral antagonists in a wild songbird 91%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.