Motor cortical control of vocal interaction in neotropical singing mice

Why does human speech have rhythm? As we cannot travel back in time to witness how speech developed its rhythmic properties and why humans have the cognitive skills to process them, we rely on alternative methods to find out. One powerful tool is the comparative approach: studying the presence or absence of cognitive/behavioral traits in other species to determine which traits are shared between species and which are recent human inventions. Vocalizations of many species exhibit temporal structure, but little is known about how these rhythmic structures evolved, are perceived and produced, their biological and developmental bases, and communicative functions. We review the literature on rhythm in speech and animal vocalizations as a first step toward understanding similarities and differences across species. We extend this review to quantitative techniques that are useful for computing rhythmic structure in acoustic sequences and hence facilitate cross‐species research. We report links between vocal perception and motor coordination and the differentiation of rhythm based on hierarchical temporal structure. While still far from a complete cross‐species perspective of speech rhythm, our review puts some pieces of the puzzle together.

“…A recent, successful example of this kind of multidisciplinary work focused on rhythmic interactivity in a rodent . Temporal features of songs of Alston's singing mice were investigated.…”

Section: General Discussion and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Human and Nonhuman Studies Of Vocal Rhythmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rhythm in speech and animal vocalizations: a cross‐species perspective

Ravignani

Bella

Falk

et al. 2019

“…We agree with our colleagues who are extending a human turn‐taking framework to other species that testable frameworks are important, that there is a shortage of data, and that, at the current stage, it cannot be decided which species show elements of human conversational turn‐taking . We argue that findings do not need to be weighted by phylogenetic distance from humans, and many examples of animal turn‐taking are still interesting in their own merit without advocating cooperation or social cognition. “Lower level” processes, such as attention, signal masking, and fixed time lags may suffice to explain much of animal turn‐taking behavior.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

“…In fact, noncooperative coordination and competition often drive animal interactive displays . We illustrate these points by discussing and building upon some recent experiments and reviews of turn‐taking in nonhuman animals . Our intention, we stress, is not to criticize a related field or a particular paper.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Interactive rhythms across species: the evolutionary biology of animal chorusing and turn‐taking

Ravignani

Verga

Greenfield

2019

The study of human language is progressively moving toward comparative and interactive frameworks, extending the concept of turn‐taking to animal communication. While such an endeavor will help us understand the interactive origins of language, any theoretical account for cross‐species turn‐taking should consider three key points. First, animal turn‐taking must incorporate biological studies on animal chorusing, namely how different species coordinate their signals over time. Second, while concepts employed in human communication and turn‐taking, such as intentionality, are still debated in animal behavior, lower level mechanisms with clear neurobiological bases can explain much of animal interactive behavior. Third, social behavior, interactivity, and cooperation can be orthogonal, and the alternation of animal signals need not be cooperative. Considering turn‐taking a subset of chorusing in the rhythmic dimension may avoid overinterpretation and enhance the comparability of future empirical work.

“…“Singing” mice, whose neural vocal circuitry differs from primates, have the neural capability to voluntarily sing to each other. Okobi and his colleagues identified an orofacial motor control region “influencing the pacing of singing behavior on a moment‐by‐moment basis, enabling precise vocal interactions.”…”

Section: Neural Circuitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The antiquity and evolution of the neural bases of rhythmic activity

Lieberman

2019

The evolution of the anatomy and neural circuits that regulate the rhythm of speech can be traced back to the Devonian age, 400 million years ago. Epigenetic processes 100 million years later modified these circuits. Natural selection on similar genetic processes occurred during the evolution of archaic hominins and humans. The lungs and larynx—anatomy that produces the rhythmic fundamental frequency patterns of speech—have a deep evolutionary history. Neural circuits linking the cortex, basal ganglia, and other subcortical structures plan, sequence, and execute motor as well as cognitive acts. These neural circuits generate the rhythm of speech, singing, and chanting. The human form of the transcription factor FOXP2 increased synaptic connectivity and plasticity in basal ganglia circuits, enhancing motor control and cognitive and linguistic capabilities in humans as well as Neanderthals. The archeological record also suggests that Neanderthals passed spoken language. Homologous circuits existed in amphibians. In songbirds, the avian form of FOXP2 acted on similar neural circuits allowing birds to learn and produce new songs. Current studies point to natural selection on genetic events enhancing these and other neural circuits to yield fully human rhythmic speech, and motor, cognitive, and linguistic capabilities, rather than the saltation proposed by Noam Chomsky.