Prior to examining the neural correlates of auditory cognition with ethologically relevant stimuli, it is first necessary to establish that laboratory-housed animals respond to these stimuli with species-typical responses. Here, we report the results of experiments on laboratory-housed rhesus monkeys using both species-typical vocalizations and band-pass noise. Paralleling the approach used in field studies of this species, we used a habituation-discrimination paradigm in which auditory stimuli were presented and a monkey’s orienting responses to the stimuli were quantified. In parallel with the results obtained in field studies, we found that laboratory-housed rhesus classified species-typical vocalizations according to their putative referent properties as opposed to similarities in their acoustic morphology. In control experiments, monkeys oriented to band-pass noise but did not categorize differences in the spectral composition of the noise stimuli. These findings support the hypothesis that laboratory-housed rhesus classify, in the absence of training, species-typical vocalizations in a manner comparable to rhesus monkeys living under more natural conditions. As such, species-typical vocalizations are an appropriate and necessary class of stimuli in experiments that explore the neural correlates of auditory cognition in rhesus monkeys from a neuroethological perspective.

Keywords:
Discrimination, Rhesus, Mammals, Habituation, Vocalization, Auditory
1.
Benz JJ (1993) Food-elicited vocalizations in golden lion tamarins: design features for representational communication. Anim Behav 45:443–455.
2.
Bercovitch F, Hauser MD, Jones J (1996) The endocrine stress response and alarm vocalizations in rhesus macaques. Anim Behav 49:1703–1706.
3.
Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (1988) Assessment of meaning and the detection of unreliable signals by vervet monkeys. Anim Behav 30:739–751.
4.
Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (1990) How monkeys see the world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
5.
Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (1992) Meaning, reference, and intentionality in the natural vocalizations of monkeys. In: Topics in Primatology, Vol 1: Human Origins (Nishida T, McGrew WC, Marler P, Pickford M, de Waal F, eds), pp 315–330. Tokyo: Tokyo University Press.
6.
Cohen YE, Gifford III GW, Cohen IS (2002) Neural correlates of auditory and visual predictive cues in area LIP. Soc Neurosci Abstr 28:57.22.
7.
DePireux DA, Simon JZ, Klein DJ, Shamma SA (2001) Spectro-temporal reponse field characterization with dynamic ripples in ferret primary auditory cortex. J Neurophysiol 85:1220–1234.
8.
Dittus WPG (1984) Toque macaque food calls: semantic communication concerning food distribution in the environment. Anim Behav 32:470–477.
9.
Eimas PD, Siqueland ER, Jusczyk P, Vigorito J (1971) Speech perception in infants. Science 171:303–306.
10.
Elowson AM, Tannenbaum PL, Snowdon CT (1991) Food-associated calls correlate with food preferences in cotton-top tamarins. Anim Behav 42:931–937.
11.
Fischer J (1998) Barbary macaques categorize shrill barks into two call types. Anim Behav 55:799–807.
12.
Fuster JM, Bodner M, Kroger JK (2000) Cross-modal and cross-temporal association in neurons of frontal cortex. Nature 405:347–351.
13.
Ghazanfar AA, Hauser MD (1999) The neuroethology of primate vocal communication: substrates for the evolution of speech. Trends Cogn Sci 3:377–384.
14.
Ghazanfar AA, Smith-Rohrberg D, Hauser MD (2001) The role of temporal cues in rhesus monkey vocal recognition: orienting asymmetries to reversed calls. Brain Behav Evol 58:163–172.
15.
Gouzoules S, Gouzoules H, Marler P (1984) Rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta) screams: Representational signalling in the recruitment of agonistic aid. Anim Behav 32:182–193.
16.
Grunewald A, Linden JF, Andersen RA (1999) Responses to auditory stimuli in macaque lateral intraparietal area. I. Effects of training. J Neurophysiol 82:330–342.
17.
Harnad S (1987) Categorical Perception: The Groundwork of Cognition. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Hauser MD (1997) The Evolution of Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
Hauser MD (1998) Functional referents and acoustic similarity: field playback experiments with rhesus monkeys. Anim Behav 55:1647–1658.
20.
Hauser MD, Marler P (1993a) Food-associated calls in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) 1. Socioecological factors influencing call production. Behav Ecol 4:194–205.
21.
Hauser MD, Marler P (1993b) Food-associated calls in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) II. Costs and benefits of call production and suppression. Behav Ecol 4:206–212.
22.
Kuhl PK (1989) On babies, birds, modules, and mechanisms: a comparative approach to the acquisition of vocal ocmmunication. In: The Compative Psychology of Audition (Dooling RJ, Hulse SH, eds), pp 379–422. Hillsadale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
Le Prell CG, Moody DB (1997) Perceptual salience of acoustic features of Japanese monkey coo calls. J Comp Psychol 111:261–274.
24.
Linden JF, Grunewald A, Andersen RA (1999) Responses to auditory stimuli in macaque lateral intraparietal area. II. Behavioral modulation. J Neurophysiol 82:343–358.
25.
Macedonia JM (1991) What is communicated in the antipredator calls of lemurs: evidence form playback experiments with ring-tailed and ruffed lemurs. Ethology 86:177–190.
26.
Moody DB (1994) Detection and discrimination of amplitude-modulated signals by macaque monkeys. J Acoust Soc Am 95:3499–3510.
27.
Newman JD (1978) Perception of sounds used in species-specific communication: the auditory cortex and beyond. J Med Primatol 7:98–105.
28.
Pereira ME, Macedonia JM (1991) Response urgency does not determine anti-predator call selection by ring-tailed lemurs. Anim Behav 41:543–544.
29.
Ploog D (1981) Neurobiology of primate audio-vocal behavior. Brain Res 1981:35–61.
30.
Rauschecker JP, Tian B, Hauser M (1995) Processing of complex sounds in the macaque nonprimary auditory cortex. Science 268:111–114.
31.
Romanski LM, Goldman-Rakic PS (2002) An auditory domain in primate prefrontal cortex. Nat Neurosci 5:15–16.
32.
Serafin JV, Moody DB, Stebbins WC (1982) Frequency selectivity of the monkey’s auditory system: psychophysical tuning curves. J Acoust Soc Am 71:1513–1518.
33.
Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL (2003) Signalers and receivers in animal communication. Ann Rev Psychol 54:145–173.
34.
Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL, Marler P (1980) Monkey responses to three different alarm calls: evidence of predator classification and semantic communication. Science 210:801–803.
35.
Spelke ES (1985) Preferential looking methods as tools for the study of cognition in infancy. In: Measurement of Audition and Vision in the First Year of Post-Natal Life (Gottlieb G, Krasnegor N, eds), pp 85–168. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
36.
Struhsaker TT (1967) Auditory communication among vervet monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops). In: Social Communication among Primates (Altmann SA, ed). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
37.
Tian B, Reser D, Durham A, Kustov A, Rauschecker JP (2001) Functional specialization in rhesus monkey auditory cortex. Science 292:290–293.
38.
Tversky A (1977) Features of similarity. Psychol Rev 84:327–352.
39.
Wang X, Kadia SC (2001) Differential representation of species-specific primate vocalizations in the auditory cortices of marmoset and cat. J Neurophysiol 86:2616–2620.
40.
Wang X, Merzenich MM, Beitel RE, Schreiner CE (1995) Representation of a species-specific vocalization in the primary auditory cortex of the common marmoset: temporal and spectral characteristics. J Neurophysiol 74:2685–2706.
41.
Wienicke A, Hausler U, Jurgens U (2001) Auditory frequency discrimination in the squirrel monkey. J Comp Physiol A 187:189–195.
42.
Wordon FG, Galambos R (1972) Auditory processing of biologically significant sounds. Neurosci Res Prog Bull 10:1–119.
43.
Zuberbuhler K (2000a) Causal cognition in a non-human primate: field playback experiments with Diana monkeys. Cognition 76:195–207.
44.
Zuberbuhler K (2000b) Interspecies semantic communication in two forest primates. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 267:713–718.
© 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel
2003
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.