4.2 Article

Threat vocalisations are acoustically similar between humans (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09524622.2023.2250320

关键词

Acoustic analysis; behavioural context; distance measures; evolution; unsupervised clustering; vocal expressions

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In various behavioral contexts, such as fighting and eating, mammals produce acoustically distinctive vocalizations. This study compares the acoustic similarity between human and chimpanzee vocalizations in 10 similar behavioral contexts to test the hypothesis of acoustic regularities in phylogenetically related species. The results show that vocalizations produced when threatening another individual are acoustically similar between humans and chimpanzees, indicating a potential phylogenetically ancient vocal signaling system.
In behavioural contexts like fighting, eating, and playing, acoustically distinctive vocalisations are produced across many mammalian species. Such expressions may be conserved in evolution, pointing to the possibility of acoustic regularities in the vocalisations of phylogenetically related species. Here, we test this hypothesis by comparing the degree of acoustic similarity between human and chimpanzee vocalisations produced in 10 similar behavioural contexts. We use two complementary analysis methods: Pairwise acoustic distance measures and acoustic separability metrics based on unsupervised learning algorithms. Cross-context analysis revealed that acoustic features of vocalisations produced when threatening another individual were distinct from other types of vocalisations and highly similar across species. Using a multimethod approach, these findings demonstrate that human vocalisations produced when threatening another person are acoustically similar to chimpanzee vocalisations in the same situation as compared to other types of vocalisations, likely reflecting a phylogenetically ancient vocal signalling system.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据