How can a multimodal approach to primate communication help us understand the evolution of communication?

Scientists studying the communication of non-human animals are often aiming to better understand the evolution of human communication, including human language. Some scientists take a phylogenetic perspective, where the goal is to trace the evolutionary history of communicative traits, while others take a functional perspective, where the goal is to understand the selection pressures underpinning specific traits. Both perspectives are necessary to fully understand the evolution of communication, but it is important to understand how the two perspectives differ and what they can and cannot tell us. Here, we suggest that integrating phylogenetic and functional questions can be fruitful in better understanding the evolution of communication. We also suggest that adopting a multimodal approach to communication might help to integrate phylogenetic and functional questions, and provide an interesting avenue for research into language evolution

The importance of comparative psychology for developmental science [Review Article]

The aim of this essay is to elucidate the relevance of cross-species comparisons for the investigation of human behavior and its development. The focus is on the comparison of human children and another group of primates, the non-human great apes, with special attention to their cognitive skills. Integrating a comparative and developmental perspective, we argue, can provide additional answers to central and elusive questions about human behavior in general and its development in particular: What are the heritable predispositions of the human mind? What cognitive traits are uniquely human? In this sense, Developmental Science would benefit from results of Comparative Psychology

The language void: the need for multimodality in primate communication research

Theories of language evolution often draw heavily on comparative evidence of the communicative abilities of extant nonhuman primates (primates). Many theories have argued exclusively for a unimodal origin of language, usually gestural or vocal. Theories are often strengthened by research on primates that indicates the absence of certain linguistic precursors in the opposing communicative modality. However, a systematic review of the primate communication literature reveals that vocal, gestural and facial signals have attracted differing theoretical and methodological approaches, rendering cross-modal comparisons problematic. The validity of the theories based on such comparisons can therefore be questioned. We propose that these a priori biases, inherent in unimodal research, highlight the need for integrated multimodal research. By examining communicative signals in concert we can both avoid methodological discontinuities as well as better understand the phylogenetic precursors to human language as part of a multimodal system

Great ape communication as contextual social inference: a computational modelling perspective

Human communication has been described as a contextual social inference process. Research into great ape communication has been inspired by this view to look for the evolutionary roots of the social, cognitive and interactional processes involved in human communication. This approach has been highly productive, yet it is partly compromised by the widespread focus on how great apes use and understand individual signals. This paper introduces a computational model that formalizes great ape communication as a multi-faceted social inference process that integrates (a) information contained in the signals that make up an utterance, (b) the relationship between communicative partners and (c) the social context. This model makes accurate qualitative and quantitative predictions about real-world communicative interactions between semi-wild-living chimpanzees. When enriched with a pragmatic reasoning process, the model explains repeatedly reported differences between humans and great apes in the interpretation of ambiguous signals (e.g. pointing or iconic gestures). This approach has direct implications for observational and experimental studies of great ape communication and provides a new tool for theorizing about the evolution of uniquely human communication. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Revisiting the human ‘interaction engine’: comparative approaches to social action coordination’

Orang-utans rely on orientation cues and egocentric rules when judging others' perspectives in a competitive food task

Adopting the paradigm of a study conducted with chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes (Melis et al. 2006, Journal of Comparative Psychology, 120, 154–162), we investigated orang-utans', Pongo pygmaeus, understanding of others' visual perspectives. More specifically, we examined whether orang-utans would adjust their behaviour in a way that prevents a human competitor from seeing them steal a piece of food. In the task, subjects had to reach through one of two opposing Plexiglas tunnels in order to retrieve a food reward. Both rewards were also physically accessible to a human competitor sitting opposite the subject. Subjects always had the possibility of reaching one piece of food that was outside the human's line of sight. This was because either the human was oriented to one, but not the other, reward or because one tunnel was covered by an opaque barrier and the other remained transparent. In the situation in which the human was oriented towards one reward, the orang-utans successfully avoided the tunnel that the competitor was facing. If one tunnel was covered, they marginally preferred to reach through the opaque versus the transparent tunnel. However, they did so frequently after initially inspecting the transparent tunnel (then switching to the opaque one). Considering only the subjects' initial inspections, they chose randomly between the opaque and transparent tunnel, indicating that their final decision to reach was probably driven by a more egocentric behavioural rule. Overall the results suggest that orang-utans have a limited understanding of others' perspectives, relying mainly on cues from facial and bodily orientation and egocentric rules when making such judgements

Pseudoreplication in Primate Communication Research : 10 Years On

Pseudoreplication is the statistical error of collecting numerous datapoints from a single unit (such as an individual), which are not independent, and applying statistical methods that assume independence of data. Importantly, pseudoreplication increases the chances of Type 1 errors (i.e., false positives), bringing findings and conclusions based on pseudoreplicated analyses into question. Ten years ago, Waller et al. (2013) published a paper highlighting the prevalence of statistical pseudoreplication throughout the nonhuman primate communication literature. In this current study, we examined the literature published since the original publication (between 2009 and 2020; 348 papers) to assess whether pseudoreplication is still as widespread as it was, if it has become more problematic, or if the field is beginning to overcome this issue. We find that there has been a significant decrease in pseudoreplication over the past ten years (38.6% then, compared with 23.0% now). This reduction in pseudoreplication appears to be associated with an increase in the use of multilevel models throughout primatology (which allow for nonindependent data to be nested appropriately). Pseudoreplication was historically more prevalent in research using observational (vs. experimental) methods and those working with wild (vs. captive) primates. However, these biases do not seem to exist in more recent literature with a more comparable likelihood of pseudoreplication seen across the field regardless of methods. Although these current findings relate specifically to primate communication research, we think they will translate broadly across nonhuman communication research, and throughout biology. We continue to emphasise the need to monitor these issues, as although now seen at much lower rates, pseudoreplication is still present and therefore potentially impacting the accuracy of findings

Orientation toward humans predicts cognitive performance in orang-utans

The authors acknowledge the Swiss National Science Foundation and following foundations who have financially supported this project: A. H. Schultz Foundation, Paul Schiller Foundation and the Claraz Foundation in Switzerland and Waldemar von Frenckells Foundation, Ella and Georgh Ehrnrooths Foundation, Otto A. Malms Donationsfond, Nordenskiöld Samfundet and Oskar Öflunds Foundation in Finland.Non-human animals sometimes show marked intraspecific variation in their cognitive abilities that may reflect variation in external inputs and experience during the developmental period. We examined variation in exploration and cognitive performance on a problem-solving task in a large sample of captive orang-utans (Pongo abelii & P. pygmaeus, N = 103) that had experienced different rearing and housing conditions during ontogeny, including human exposure. In addition to measuring exploration and cognitive performance, we also conducted a set of assays of the subjects’ psychological orientation, including reactions towards an unfamiliar human, summarized in the human orientation index (HOI), and towards novel food and objects. Using generalized linear mixed models we found that the HOI, rather than rearing background, best predicted both exploration and problem-solving success. Our results suggest a cascade of processes: human orientation was accompanied by a change in motivation towards problem-solving, expressed in reduced neophobia and increased exploration variety, which led to greater experience, and thus eventually to higher performance in the task. We propose that different experiences with humans caused individuals to vary in curiosity and understanding of the physical problem-solving task. We discuss the implications of these findings for comparative studies of cognitive ability.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Social use of facial expressions in hylobatids

Non-human primates use various communicative means in interactions with others. While primate gestures are commonly considered to be intentionally and flexibly used signals, facial expressions are often referred to as inflexible, automatic expressions of affective internal states. To explore whether and how non-human primates use facial expressions in specific communicative interactions, we studied five species of small apes (gibbons) by employing a newly established Facial Action Coding System for hylobatid species (GibbonFACS). We found that, despite individuals often being in close proximity to each other, in social (as opposed to non-social contexts) the duration of facial expressions was significantly longer when gibbons were facing another individual compared to non-facing situations. Social contexts included grooming, agonistic interactions and play, whereas non-social contexts included resting and self-grooming. Additionally, gibbons used facial expressions while facing another individual more often in social contexts than non-social contexts where facial expressions were produced regardless of the attentional state of the partner. Also, facial expressions were more likely ‘responded to’ by the partner’s facial expressions when facing another individual than non-facing. Taken together, our results indicate that gibbons use their facial expressions differentially depending on the social context and are able to use them in a directed way in communicative interactions with other conspecifics

Scratching Beneath the Surface : Intentionality in Great Ape Signal production

Despite important similarities having been found between human and animal communication systems, surprisingly little research effort has focussed on whether the cognitive mechanisms underpinning these behaviours are also similar. In particular, it is highly debated whether signal production is the result of reflexive processes, or can be characterised as intentional. Here, we critically evaluate the criteria that are used to identify signals produced with different degrees of intentionality, and discuss recent attempts to apply these criteria to the vocal, gestural, and multimodal communicative signals of great apes and more distantly related species. Finally, we outline the necessary research tools, such as physiologically validated measures of arousal, and empirical evidence that we believe would propel this debate forward and help unravel the evolutionary origins of human intentional communication

Culture and Evolution

This chapter captures extensive discussions between people with different forms of expertise and viewpoints. It explores the relationships between language and music in evolutionary and cultural context. Rather than trying to essentialize either, they are characterized pragmatically in terms of features that appear to distinguish them (such as language’s compositional propositionality as opposed to music’s foregrounding of isochronicity), and those that they evidently share. Factors are considered that consti- tute proximate motivations for humans to communicate through language and music, ranging from language’s practical value in the organization of collective behavior to music’s significant role in eliciting and managing prosocial attitudes. Possible distal motivations are reviewed for music and language, in terms of the potentially adap- tive functions of human communication systems, and an assessment is made of the advantages which might accrue to flexible communicators in the light of ethological and archaeological evidence concerning the landscape of selection. Subsequently, the possible evolutionary relationships between music and language are explored, within a framework supplied by six possible models of their emergence. Issues of the roles of culture and of biology in the evolution of communication systems are then addressed within the framework of triadic niche construction, and the chapter concludes by sur- veying available comparative and phylogenetic issues that might inform the debate