Search for: All records

Abstract Communication signals by both human and non-human animals are often interrupted in nature. One advantage of multimodal cues is to maintain the salience of interrupted signals. We studied a frog that naturally can have silent gaps within its call. Using video/audio-playbacks, we presented females with interrupted mating calls with or without a simultaneous dynamic (i.e., inflating and deflating) vocal sac and tested whether multisensory cues (noise and/or dynamic vocal sac) inserted into the gap can compensate an interrupted call. We found that neither inserting white noise into the silent gap of an interrupted call nor displaying the dynamic vocal sac in that same gap restored the attraction of the call equivalent to that of a complete call. Simultaneously presenting a dynamic vocal sac along with noise in the gap, however, compensated the interrupted call, making it as attractive as a complete call. Our results demonstrate that the dynamic visual sac compensates for noise interference. Such novel multisensory integration suggests that multimodal cues can provide insurance against imperfect sender coding in a noisy environment, and the communication benefits to the receiver from multisensory integration may be an important selective force favoring multimodal signal evolution. 

For complex communication signals, it is often difficult to identify the information-bearing elements and their parameters necessary to elicit functional behavior. Consequently, it may be difficult to design stimuli that test how neurons contribute to communicative processing. For tu´ngara frogs (Physalaemus pustulosus), however, previous behavioral testing with numerous stimuli showed that a particular frequency modulated (FM) transition in the male call is required to elicit phonotaxis and vocal responses. Modeled on such behavioral experiments, we used awake in vivo recordings of single units in the midbrain to determine if their excitation was biased to behaviorally important FM parameters. Comparisons of stimulus driven action potentials revealed greatest excitation to the behaviorally important FM transition: a downward FM sweep or step that crosses ~600 Hz. Previous studies using long-duration acoustic exposure found immediate early gene expression in many midbrain neurons to be most sensitive to similar FM. However, those data could not determine if FM coding was accomplished by the population and/or individual neurons. Our data suggest both coding schemes could operate, as 1) individual neurons are more sensitive to the behaviorally significant FM transition and 2) when single unit recordings are analytically combined across cells, the combined code can produce high stimulus discrimination (FM vs. noise driven excitation), approaching that found in behavioral discrimination of call vs. noise. 

Taking an evolutionary approach to the question of beauty, we discuss the expression and perception of sexual beauty across the animal kingdom. Animals experience beauty in their brains, and animal brains are tuned to features of the environment most relevant to their survival. Over evolutionary time, sexually reproducing animals have exploited that tuning to maximize their attractiveness to the opposite sex, often leading to extreme courtship traits and behaviors. These are the traits of sexual beauty. Combining modern principles of neuroscience and neuroaesthetics with established principles of evolutionary biology, we aim to understand the biological basis and evolution of beauty in all animals, including ourselves. 

BACKGROUND Charles Darwin’s  Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex  tackled the two main controversies arising from the Origin of Species:  the evolution of humans from animal ancestors and the evolution of sexual ornaments. Most of the book focuses on the latter, Darwin’s theory of sexual selection. Research since supports his conjecture that songs, perfumes, and intricate dances evolve because they help secure mating partners. Evidence is overwhelming for a primary role of both male and female mate choice in sexual selection—not only through premating courtship but also through intimate interactions during and long after mating. But what makes one prospective mate more enticing than another? Darwin, shaped by misogyny and sexual prudery, invoked a “taste for the beautiful” without speculating on the origin of the “taste.” How to explain when the “final marriage ceremony” is between two rams? What of oral sex in bats, cloacal rubbing in bonobos, or the sexual spectrum in humans, all observable in Darwin’s time? By explaining desire through the lens of those male traits that caught his eyes and those of his gender and culture, Darwin elided these data in his theory of sexual evolution. Work since Darwin has focused on how traits and preferences coevolve. Preferences can evolve even if attractive signals only predict offspring attractiveness, but most attention has gone to the intuitive but tenuous premise that mating with gorgeous partners yields vigorous offspring. By focusing on those aspects of mating preferences that coevolve with male traits, many of Darwin’s influential followers have followed the same narrow path. The sexual selection debate in the 1980s was framed as “good genes versus runaway”: Do preferences coevolve with traits because traits predict genetic benefits, or simply because they are beautiful? To the broader world this is still the conversation. ADVANCES Even as they evolve toward ever-more-beautiful signals and healthier offspring, mate-choice mechanisms and courter traits are locked in an arms race of coercion and resistance, persuasion and skepticism. Traits favored by sexual selection often do so at the expense of chooser fitness, creating sexual conflict. Choosers then evolve preferences in response to the costs imposed by courters. Often, though, the current traits of courters tell us little about how preferences arise. Sensory systems are often tuned to nonsexual cues like food, favoring mating signals resembling those cues. And preferences can emerge simply from selection on choosing conspecifics. Sexual selection can therefore arise from chooser biases that have nothing to do with ornaments. Choice may occur before mating, as Darwin emphasized, but individuals mate multiple times and bias fertilization and offspring care toward favored partners. Mate choice can thus occur in myriad ways after mating, through behavioral, morphological, and physiological mechanisms. Like other biological traits, mating preferences vary among individuals and species along multiple dimensions. Some of this is likely adaptive, as different individuals will have different optimal mates. Indeed, mate choice may be more about choosing compatible partners than picking the “best” mate in the absolute sense. Compatibility-based choice can drive or reinforce genetic divergence and lead to speciation. The mechanisms underlying the “taste for the beautiful” determine whether mate choice accelerates or inhibits reproductive isolation. If preferences are learned from parents, or covary with ecological differences like the sensory environment, then choice can promote genetic divergence. If everyone shares preferences for attractive ornaments, then choice promotes gene flow between lineages. OUTLOOK Two major trends continue to shift the emphasis away from male “beauty” and toward how and why individuals make sexual choices. The first integrates neuroscience, genomics, and physiology. We need not limit ourselves to the feathers and dances that dazzled Darwin, which gives us a vastly richer picture of mate choice. The second is that despite persistent structural inequities in academia, a broader range of people study a broader range of questions. This new focus confirms Darwin’s insight that mate choice makes a primary contribution to sexual selection, but suggests that sexual selection is often tangential to mate choice. This conclusion challenges a persistent belief with sinister roots, whereby mate choice is all about male ornaments. Under this view, females evolve to prefer handsome males who provide healthy offspring, or alternatively, to express flighty whims for arbitrary traits. But mate-choice mechanisms also evolve for a host of other reasons Understanding mate choice mechanisms is key to understanding how sexual decisions underlie speciation and adaptation to environmental change. New theory and technology allow us to explicitly connect decision-making mechanisms with their evolutionary consequences. A century and a half after Darwin, we can shift our focus to females and males as choosers, rather than the gaudy by-products of mate choice. Mate choice mechanisms across domains of life. Sensory periphery for stimulus detection (yellow), brain for perceptual integration and evaluation (orange), and reproductive structures for postmating choice among pollen or sperm (teal). ILLUSTRATION: KELLIE HOLOSKI/ SCIENCE 

Noise is a common problem in animal communication. We know little, however, about how animals communicate in noise using multimodal signals. Multimodal signals are hypothesized to be favoured by evolution because they increase the efficacy of detection/discrimination in noisy environments. We tested the hypothesis that female túngara frogs’ responses to attractive male advertisement calls are improved in noise when a visual signal component is added to the available choices. We tested this at two levels of decision complexity (two and three choices). In a two-choice test, the presence of noise did not reduce female preferences for attractive calls. The visual component of a calling male, associated with an unattractive call, also did not reduce preference for attractive calls in the absence of noise. In the presence of noise, however, females were more likely to choose an unattractive call coupled with the visual component. In three-choice tests, the presence of noise alone reduced female responses to attractive calls and this was not strongly affected by the presence or absence of visual components. The responses in these experiments fail to support the multimodal signal efficacy hypothesis. Instead, the data suggest that audio-visual perception and cognitive processing, related to mate choice decisions, are dependent on the complexity of the sensory scene. 

One hundred fifty years ago Darwin published The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex , in which he presented his theory of sexual selection with its emphasis on sexual beauty. However, it was not until 50 y ago that there was a renewed interest in Darwin’s theory in general, and specifically the potency of mate choice. Darwin suggested that in many cases female preferences for elaborately ornamented males derived from a female’s taste for the beautiful, the notion that females were attracted to sexual beauty for its own sake. Initially, female mate choice attracted the interest of behavioral ecologists focusing on the fitness advantages accrued through mate choice. Subsequent studies focused on sensory ecology and signal design, often showing how sensory end organs influenced the types of traits females found attractive. Eventually, investigations of neural circuits, neurogenetics, and neurochemistry uncovered a more complete scaffolding underlying sexual attraction. More recently, research inspired by human studies in psychophysics, behavioral economics, and neuroaesthetics have provided some notion of its higher-order mechanisms. In this paper, I review progress in our understanding of Darwin’s conjecture of “a taste for the beautiful” by considering research from these diverse fields that have conspired to provide unparalleled insight into the chooser’s mate choices. 

Communication systems often include a variety of components, including those that span modalities, which may facilitate detection and decision-making. For example, female tungara frogs and fringe-lipped bats generally rely on acoustic mating signals to find male tungara frogs in a mating or foraging context, respectively. However, two additional cues (vocal sac inflation and water ripples) can enhance detection and choice behavior. To date, we do not know the natural variation and covariation of these three components. To address this, we made detailed recordings of calling males, including call amplitude, vocal sac volume and water ripple height, in 54 frogs (2430 calls). We found that all three measures correlated, with the strongest association between the vocal sac volume and call amplitude. We also found that multimodal models predicted the mass of calling males better than unimodal models. These results demonstrate how multimodal components of a communication system relate to each other and provide an important foundation for future studies on how receivers integrate and compare complex displays.