Is the ability to entrain motor activity to a rhythmic auditory stimulus, that is "keep a beat," dependent on neural adaptations supporting vocal mimicry? That is the premise of the vocal learning and synchronization hypothesis, recently advanced to explain the basis of this behavior (A. Patel, 2006, Musical Rhythm, Linguistic Rhythm, and Human Evolution, Music Perception, 24, 99-104). Prior to the current study, only vocal mimics, including humans, cockatoos, and budgerigars, have been shown to be capable of motoric entrainment. Here we demonstrate that a less vocally flexible animal, a California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), can learn to entrain head bobbing to an auditory rhythm meeting three criteria: a behavioral response that does not reproduce the stimulus; performance transfer to a range of novel tempos; and entrainment to complex, musical stimuli. These findings show that the capacity for entrainment of movement to rhythmic sounds does not depend on a capacity for vocal mimicry, and may be more widespread in the animal kingdom than previously hypothesized.

Until recently, the literature on rhythmic ability took for granted that only humans are able to synchronize body movements to an external beat-to entrain. This assumption has been undercut by findings of beat-matching in various species of parrots and, more recently, in a sea lion, several species of primates, and possibly horses. This throws open the question of how widespread beat-matching ability is in the animal kingdom. Here we reassess the arguments and evidence for an absence of beat-matching in animals, and conclude that in fact no convincing case against beatmatching in animals has been made. Instead, such evidence as there is suggests that this capacity could be quite widespread. Furthermore, mutual entrainment of oscillations is a general principle of physical systems, both biological and nonbiological, suggesting that entrainment of motor systems by sensory systems may be a default rather than an oddity. The question then becomes, not why a few privileged species are able to beat-match, but why species do not always do sowhy they vary in both spontaneous and learned beatmatching. We propose that when entrainment is not driven by fixed, mandatory connections between input and output (as in the case of, e.g., fireflies entraining to each others' flashes), it depends on voluntary control over, and voluntary or learned coupling of, sensory and motor systems, which can paradoxically lead to apparent failures of entrainment. Among the factors that affect whether an animal will entrain are sufficient control over the motor behavior to be entrained, sufficient perceptual sophistication to extract the entraining beat from the overall sensory environment, and the current cognitive state of the animal, including attention and motivation. The extent of entrainment in the animal kingdom potentially has widespread implications, not only for understanding the roots of human dance, but also for understanding the neural and cognitive architectures of animals.

Recent behavioral evidence suggests that dogs, like humans and monkeys, are capable of visual face recognition. But do dogs also exhibit specialized cortical face regions similar to humans and monkeys? Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in six dogs trained to remain motionless during scanning without restraint or sedation, we found a region in the canine temporal lobe that responded significantly more to movies of human faces than to movies of everyday objects. Next, using a new stimulus set to investigate face selectivity in this predefined candidate dog face area, we found that this region responded similarly to images of human faces and dog faces, yet significantly more to both human and dog faces than to images of objects. Such face selectivity was not found in dog primary visual cortex. Taken together, these findings: (1) provide the first evidence for a face-selective region in the temporal cortex of dogs, which cannot be explained by simple low-level visual feature extraction; (2) reveal that neural machinery dedicated to face processing is not unique to primates; and (3) may help explain dogs’ exquisite sensitivity to human social cues.

Domoic acid (DA) is a naturally occurring neurotoxin known to harm marine animals. DA-producing algal blooms are increasing in size and frequency. Although chronic exposure is known to produce brain lesions, the influence of DA toxicosis on behavior in wild animals is unknown. We showed, in a large sample of wild sea lions, that spatial memory deficits are predicted by the extent of right dorsal hippocampal lesions related to natural exposure to DA and that exposure also disrupts hippocampal-thalamic brain networks. Because sea lions are dynamic foragers that rely on flexible navigation, impaired spatial memory may affect survival in the wild.

Having previously used functional MRI to map the response to a reward signal in the ventral caudate in awake unrestrained dogs, here we examined the importance of signal source to canine caudate activation. Hand signals representing either incipient reward or no reward were presented by a familiar human (each dog’s respective handler), an unfamiliar human, and via illustrated images of hands on a computer screen to 13 dogs undergoing voluntary fMRI. All dogs had received extensive training with the reward and no-reward signals from their handlers and with the computer images and had minimal exposure to the signals from strangers. All dogs showed differentially higher BOLD response in the ventral caudate to the reward versus no reward signals, and there was a robust effect at the group level. Further, differential response to the signal source had a highly significant interaction with a dog’s general aggressivity as measured by the C-BARQ canine personality assessment. Dogs with greater aggressivity showed a higher differential response to the reward signal versus no-reward signal presented by the unfamiliar human and computer, while dogs with lower aggressivity showed a higher differential response to the reward signal versus no-reward signal from their handler. This suggests that specific facets of canine temperament bear more strongly on the perceived reward value of relevant communication signals than does reinforcement history, as each of the dogs were reinforced similarly for each signal, regardless of the source (familiar human, unfamiliar human, or computer). A group-level psychophysiological interaction (PPI) connectivity analysis showed increased functional coupling between the caudate and a region of cortex associated with visual discrimination and learning on reward versus no-reward trials. Our findings emphasize the sensitivity of the domestic dog to human social interaction, and may have other implications and applications pertinent to the training and assessment of working and pet dogs.

Human capacity for entraining movement to external rhythms—i.e., beat keeping—is ubiquitous, but its evolutionary history and neural underpinnings remain a mystery. Recent findings of entrainment to simple and complex rhythms in non-human animals pave the way for a novel comparative approach to assess the origins and mechanisms of rhythmic behavior. The most reliable non-human beat keeper to date is a California sea lion, Ronan, who was trained to match head movements to isochronous repeating stimuli and showed spontaneous generalization of this ability to novel tempos and to the complex rhythms of music. Does Ronan's performance rely on the same neural mechanisms as human rhythmic behavior? In the current study, we presented Ronan with simple rhythmic stimuli at novel tempos. On some trials, we introduced “perturbations,” altering either tempo or phase in the middle of a presentation. Ronan quickly adjusted her behavior following all perturbations, recovering her consistent phase and tempo relationships to the stimulus within a few beats. Ronan's performance was consistent with predictions of mathematical models describing coupled oscillation: a model relying solely on phase coupling strongly matched her behavior, and the model was further improved with the addition of period coupling. These findings are the clearest evidence yet for parity in human and non-human beat keeping and support the view that the human ability to perceive and move in time to rhythm may be rooted in broadly conserved neural mechanisms.

Recently psychologists have taken up the question of whether dance is reliant on unique human adaptations, or whether it is rooted in neural and cognitive mechanisms shared with other species [1,2]. In its full cultural complexity, human dance clearly has no direct analog in animal behavior. Most definitions of dance include the consistent production of movement sequences timed to an external rhythm. While not sufficient for dance, modes of auditory-motor timing, such as synchronization and entrainment, are experimentally tractable constructs that may be analyzed and compared between species. In an effort to assess the evolutionary precursors to entrainment and social features of human dance, Laland and colleagues [2] have suggested that dance may be an incidental byproduct of adaptations supporting vocal or motor imitation - referred to here as the 'imitation and sequencing' hypothesis. In support of this hypothesis, Laland and colleagues rely on four convergent lines of evidence drawn from behavioral and neurobiological research on dance behavior in humans and rhythmic behavior in other animals. Here, we propose a less cognitive, more parsimonious account for the evolution of dance. Our 'timing and interaction' hypothesis suggests that dance is scaffolded off of broadly conserved timing mechanisms allowing both cooperative and antagonistic social coordination.

Dogs are hypersocial with humans, and their integration into human social ecology makes dogs a unique model for studying cross-species social bonding. However, the proximal neural mechanisms driving dog–human social interaction are unknown. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging in 15 awake dogs to probe the neural basis for their preferences for social interaction and food reward. In a first experiment, we used the ventral caudate as a measure of intrinsic reward value and compared activation to conditioned stimuli that predicted food, praise or nothing. Relative to the control stimulus, the caudate was significantly more active to the reward-predicting stimuli and showed roughly equal or greater activation to praise vs food in 13 of 15 dogs. To confirm that these differences were driven by the intrinsic value of social praise, we performed a second imaging experiment in which the praise was withheld on a subset of trials. The difference in caudate activation to the receipt of praise, relative to its withholding, was strongly correlated with the differential activation to the conditioned stimuli in the first experiment. In a third experiment, we performed an out-of-scanner choice task in which the dog repeatedly selected food or owner in a Y-maze. The relative caudate activation to food- and praise-predicting stimuli in Experiment 1 was a strong predictor of each dog’s sequence of choices in the Y-maze. Analogous to similar neuroimaging studies of individual differences in human social reward, our findings demonstrate a neural mechanism for preference in domestic dogs that is stable within, but variable between, individuals. Moreover, the individual differences in the caudate responses indicate the potentially higher value of social than food reward for some dogs and may help to explain the apparent efficacy of social interaction in dog training.