Approaches to the mechanisms of song memorization and singing provide evidence for a procedural memory

Abstract

There is growing evidence that, during song learning, birds do not only acquire 'what to sing' (the inventory of behavior), but also 'how to sing' (the singing program), including order-features of song sequencing. Common Nightingales Luscinia megarhynchos acquire such serial information by segmenting long strings of heard songs into smaller subsets or packages, by a process reminiscent of the chunking of information as a coding mechanism in short term memory. Here we report three tutoring experiments on nightingales that examined whether such 'chunking' was susceptible to experimental cueing. The experiments tested whether (1) 'temporal phrasing' (silent intersong intervals spaced out at particular positions of a tutored string), or (2) 'stimulus novelty' (groups of novel song-types added to a basic string), or (3) 'pattern similarity' in the phonetic structure of songs (here: sharing of song initials) would induce package boundaries (or chunking) at the manipulated sequential positions. The results revealed cueing effects in experiments (1) and (2) but not in experiment (3). The finding that birds used temporal variables as cues for chunking does not require the assumption that package formation is a cognitive strategy. Rather, it points towards a mechanism of procedural memory operating in the song acquisition of birds.

Statistical and Prosodic Cues for Song Segmentation Learning by Bengalese Finches (Lonchura striata var. domestica)

“…There are a few analytical approaches to examine this issue. In common nightingales, Luscinia megarhynchos , tutoring experiments showed that novelty of song types and duration of intersong intervals acted as cues for song packaging (Hultsch & Todt 2004). Segmentation of song itself, but not sequences of songs, has been studied in zebra finches ( Taeniopygia guttata ).…”

On Empirical Methodology, Constraints, and Hierarchy in Artificial Grammar Learning

“…One wonderful example in the literature comes quite close. Hultsch and Todt () reported a study in which common nightingales were tutored on experimental strings of kind‐specific songs. Dependent on the experimental design, a training string would contain some 20–25 songs that were all different.…”

Repertoire Sharing and Song Similarity between Great Tit Males Decline with Distance between Forest Fragments

“…In general, song variation with geographical distance depends on male dispersal tendency, whether there is song‐dependent territory establishment and whether song development is influenced by social learning (Baker & Cunningham 1985; Slater 1989; Slabbekoorn & Smith 2002b). Songbirds, hummingbirds, and parrots are especially interesting in this respect as they are the main taxonomic groups in which acoustic experience with conspecifics influences the developmental trajectory towards adult songs or calls (Hultsch & Todt 2004; Beecher & Brenowitz 2005). The impact of learning on geographical variation is determined by the degree and timing of plasticity and especially important is whether copying of song characteristics occurs pre‐ or post‐dispersal (Goodfellow & Slater 1986; Wilson et al.…”