Rhythm interaction in animal groups: selective attention in communication networks

Abstract

Animals communicating interactively with conspecifics often time their broadcasts to avoid overlapping interference, to emit leading, as opposed to following, signals or to synchronize their signalling rhythms. Each of these adjustments becomes more difficult as the number of interactants increases beyond a pair. Among acoustic species, insects and anurans generally deal with the problem of group signalling by means of ‘selective attention’ in which they focus on several close or conspicuous neighbours and ignore the rest. In these animals, where signalling and receiving are often dictated by sex, the process of selective attention in signallers may have a parallel counterpart in receivers, which also focus on close neighbours. In birds and mammals, local groups tend to be extended families or clans, and group signalling may entail complex timing mechanisms that allow for attention to all individuals. In general, the mechanisms that allow animals to communicate in groups appear to be fully interwoven with the basic process of rhythmic signalling. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Synchrony and rhythm interaction: from the brain to behavioural ecology’.

Synchrony and rhythm interaction: from the brain to behavioural ecology

“…Synchrony and rhythm interaction are elaborate behaviour, and particularly so in social groups. An individual must not only be concerned with the timing of its sensorimotor activity, but often needs to decide on whom to ignore, whom to pay attention to, and how [15]. A large body of experimental work and modelling has taken a cognitive science approach to understand how these coordinations and decisions are made in humans and non-human animals.…”

“…120°(=360°/3) and 90°(=360°/4), in addition to 180°, exhibited modest stability during testing. These phases may stimulate a small amount of cross-frequency coupling, and they are observed in some animal choruses, as when three or four male frogs call together, each male offset by 120°or 90°, respectively, following one of his neighbours [15].…”

“…Greenfield et al [15] take the rather opposite approach by focusing specifically on communication in animal groups, i.e. assemblages of three or more individuals.…”

“…These interactions appear to result from a small number of sensorimotor mechanisms by which a rhythm's free-running repetition rate or its relative phase is adjusted [23]. The several mechanisms occur among organisms-chordates and arthropods [15,23]-whose most recent common ancestors lived at least 600 Ma and most likely had rudimentary nervous systems at best. Thus, the shared mechanisms probably reflect evolutionary convergence: confronted by common selection pressures to communicate clearly and persuasively, to cooperate, to compete effectively with other groups or within one's own group, or to evade natural enemies, the number of solutions could be quite limited.…”

Temporal structure of two call types produced by competing male cicadas

“…For instance, frogs and insects form a lek in which males produce sounds to attract conspecific females. Male frogs tend to avoid call overlaps with neighbors (Aihara et al, 2011; Aihara et al, 2014; Brush and Narins, 1989; Gerhardt and Huber, 2002, Jones et al, 2014, Wells, 2007,), whereas insects often overlap their calls (Gerhardt and Huber, 2002; Greenfield and Roizen, 1993; Greenfield et al, 2021). As other examples, male birds sing complex songs for mate attraction (Catchpole and Slater, 2008); monkeys and meercats produce sounds for communication while avoiding call overlaps with each other (Takahashi et al, 2013, Demartsev et al, 2018).…”