Bird Song and Operant Experiments: A New Tool to Investigate Song Perception

  • Daniel M. Weary
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 228)


Song playbacks have now been used for many years to investigate how birds respond to songs. Two methods have generally been used. Experimental songs have been played to either territorial males and the aggressive response measured, or to females treated with sex hormones and the sexual response measured (see chapter by Searcy in this volume). With either method, when birds respond differently to various songs we can conclude that they perceive a difference between them. But what can we conclude when subjects show no difference in response? Either that they do not perceive the difference between the songs, or that this difference is not relevant in distinguishing between territorial intruders or sexual partners. Recently, operant techniques have been developed which allow researchers to remove song from these biological contexts. Subjects are trained to associate certain songs with a food reward. The subjects’ responses to test songs can then be used to determine their perception of the similarity between test and training songs. I review a recent operant experiment investigating the perception of song by birds and discuss the advantages of this procedure.


Wild Bird Zebra Finch Song Type Territorial Male Playback Experiment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Brooks, R.J. and Falls, J.B. 1975. Individual recognition by song in white-throated sparrows. III. Song features used in individual recognition. Can. J. Zool., 53, 1749–1761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, S.D., Dooling, R.J. and O’Grady, K. 1988. Perceptual organization of acoustic stimuli by budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus): III. Contact calls. J. Comp. Psychol., 102, 236–247.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cynx, J. in press. Varieties of perceptual experience. Quant. Anal. Behan Google Scholar
  4. Cynx, J., Williams, H. and Nottebohm, F. 1990. Timbre discrimination in zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata) song syllables. J. Comp. Psychol., 104, 303–308.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dooling, R.J. 1982. Auditory perception in birds. In: Evolution and Ecology of Acoustic Communication in Birds. 1bl.II. (Ed. by D.E. Kroodsma, E.H. Miller and H. Ouellet ), pp. 95–130. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dooling, R.J., Brown, D.D., Park, T.J., Okanoya, K. and Soli, S. D. 1987a. Perceptual organization of acoustic stimuli by budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus): I. Pure tones. J. Comp. Psychol., 101, 139–149.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dooling, R.J., Park, T.J., Brown, D.D., Okanoya, K. and Soli, S.D. 1987b. Perceptual organization of acoustic stimuli by budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus): II. Vocal signals. J. Comp. Psychol., 101, 367–381.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eriksson, D. and Wallin, L. 1986. Male bird song attracts females–a field experiment. Behay. Ecol. Sociobiol., 19, 297–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Falls, J.B. 1982. Individual recognition by sound in birds. In: Evolution and Ecology of Acoustic Communication in Birds. Ib1.I1. (Ed. by D.E. Kroodsma, E.H. Miller and H. Ouellet ), pp. 237–273. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Krebs, J.R. 1971. Territory and breeding density in the great tit, Parus major L. Ecology, 52, 2–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Krebs, J.R., Ashcroft, R. and Webber, M. 1978. Song repertoires and territory defence in the great tit. Nature, 271, 539–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mann, V., and Liberman, A. 1988. Some differences between phonetic and auditory modes of perception. Cognition, 14, 211–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Marier, P. and Peters, S. 1981. Birdsong and speech: Evidence for special processing. In: Perspectives on the Study of Speech. (Ed. by P. Eimas and J. Miller ), pp. 75–112. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Hillsdale, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  14. McGregor, P.K. and Krebs, J.R. 1982. Song types in a population of great tits (Parus major): their distribution, abundance, and acquisition by individuals. Behaviour, 79, 126–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mountjoy, D.J. and Lemon, R.E. 1991. Song as an attractant for male and female European starlings and the influence of song complexity on their response. Behay. Ecol. Sociobiol., 28, 97–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Park, T.J. and Dooling, R.J. 1985. Perception of species-specific contact calls by budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus). J. Comp. Psychol., 99, 391–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Park, T.J., Okanoya, K. and Dooling, R.J. 1985. Operant conditioning of small birds for acoustic discrimination. Ethology, 3, 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sinnott, J.M. 1980. Species-specific coding in bird song. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 68, 494–497. Sinnott, J.M. 1987. Modes of perceiving and processing the information in birdsong (Agelaius phoeniceus, Molothrus ater, and Homo sapiens). J. Comp. Psychol., 101, 355–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shy, E., McGregor, P.K. and Krebs, J.R. 1986. Discrimination of song types by male great tits. Behay. Proc., 13, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Weary, D.M. 1989. Categorical perception of bird song: how do great tits (Parus major) perceive temporal variation in their own song? J. Comp. Psychol., 103, 320–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Weary, D.M. 1990. Categorization of song notes in great tits: which acoustic features are used and why? Anim. Behay., 39, 450–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Weary, D.M. 1991. How great tits use song-note and whole-song features to categorize their songs. Auk, 108, 187–189.Google Scholar
  23. Weary, D.M, Falls, J.B. and McGregor, P.K. 1990. Song matching and the perception of song types in great tits. Behay. Ecol., 1, 43–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Weary, D.M, and Krebs, J.R. in press. Great tits classify songs by individual voice characteristics. Anim. Behay.Google Scholar
  25. Weary, D.M. and Weisman, R.G. 1991. Operant discrimination of frequency and frequency ratio in the black-capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus). J. Comp. Psychol., 105, 253–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel M. Weary
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations