Slashdot Mirror


Bird Brains Explain How Humans Learn to Talk

eaglebtc writes "A team of neuroscientists at MIT have made tremendous progress in understanding how birds learn to sing: a part of the brain called the basal ganglia is primarily responsible for controlling the learning of movement and the production of speech. This circuitry is also present in humans, and it is the same way that a baby's random babbling eventually becomes the proficient speech of adults. It is hoped that this research can provide further insights into Parkinson's Disease, an inherited genetic condition that causes rapid breakdown of motor control and speech production. The full research study is available as a downloadable PDF."

22 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. Re:But does this explain... by simcop2387 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    actually i believe it should since the patterns that the basal ganglia uses to learn how to connect things would be affected by the constant listening to car alarms while young making them a part of the bird "vocabulary." which means that car alarms are bird slang, what for i have no idea.

  2. Birds and Humans by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Considering our common ancestor was so far back, what's more likely: parallel and independent development of speech in more recent years, or a singular development WAY back in the day? If the case is the latter, we should expect to find this evolutionary trait in quite a few species out there.

    --
    Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
    Africus aut Europaeus?
    1. Re:Birds and Humans by Pfhorrest · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What I find interesting is the connection between motor control and speech abilities.

      In the philosophy paper I'm writing, I go on a bit about communication as a source of knowledge being the ability to recognize certain observations as being indicative as originating from other like entities, i.e. when I hear certain sounds, that indicates not just something about my environment, but about another being like myself.

      This applies pretty clearly not only to sound-making (speech) and hearing, but also to other forms of behavior (see sign language in humans for a pretty incontroversial example of non-spoken communication behavior). The reason I find this 'motor control' / 'speech ability' link interesting is that motor control indicates that it's not the systems responsible for causing movement, but he systems responsible for controlling movement, for selecting specific actions for specific reasons.

      It seems to me that this biological link between communication abilities and a sort of 'willed' (controlled) action makes perfect sense; on the one hand it's responsible for putting meaning into things the individual is doing, instead of a blind stimulus-response, and on the other hand it's responsible for assigning meaning to what other individuals do.

      In a sense, it seems to be somewhat responsible for any type of 'social' thought and action at all, both for understanding that when I do this, I mean that, and that when I see this, it means that; as opposed to making observations of the world and reacting to them without any meaning associated. This is not limited only to vocalization but to any type of behavior which may by association convey information to another; dog marking their terrirory is communication by scent, sign language and writing is communication by sign, all sorts of noise-making is communication by sound...

      From a simple beginning like this it's possible to see how more advanced social mechanisms could build. Once the individual has begun to recognize on some level that other things it sees and hears are not just a part of its environment but other beings like itself, possible with useful information: from there you can begin to develop empathy and sympathy and whole forms of social interaction not often seen outside of mammalian and avian species. Which makes perfect sense, if this neural feature is found in common between both humans and birds.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    2. Re:Birds and Humans by Decaff · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Considering our common ancestor was so far back, what's more likely: parallel and independent development of speech in more recent years, or a singular development WAY back in the day?

      Independent development, I would think. The main article here is wrong. The same circuitry is NOT present in humans. As the original article says, the circuitry has a 'human counterpart' - most likely independently evolved.

  3. Chomsky by delirium+of+disorder · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder if this research supports or refutes the conclusions made by MIT's most famous linguist, Noam Chomsky, regarding language acquisition and development.

    --
    ------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
    1. Re:Chomsky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      TFA is Slashdotted at the moment, but I don't think this has terribly much to do with Chomsky's work.

      It's important to note the difference between the acquisition of *language* and the acquisition of *speech*. Congentially deaf persons are capable of acquiring the former quite naturally, in the form of Sign, which is a language (or rather, are languages) entirely of it's own. (Signed English, etc. are "hacks" in the perjorative sense -- a congenitally deaf person does not "think" in Signed English, but in some other symbolic language [ASL generally]).

      Babies are capable of learning symbolic languages long before they are capable of learning speech. The two are distinct categories of development -- So, really, this doesn't "go as deep" as Chomsky's work, which concerns language development in general, and not speech in particular.

      [I'm a bit drunk right now, so I'm AC.}

      And since I'm AC, I'll go ahead and say that I think Chomsky is a fucking choad for his non-linguistics "work", which consists of getting insanely rich by writing books critical of every political view but his version of anarcho-syndicalism. -- but feel free do mod me independently of this viewpoint.

    2. Re:Chomsky by delirium+of+disorder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're probably correct about Chomsky being somewhat motivated by money; I'm sure his book and lecture recording deals bring in a pritty penney. However, I think his politics go much deeper then that. First of all, he's remained politically active in several forums, and has even been arrested at protests. Second of all, there are several people who are not anarchaists who he has cited and praised the work of. NC has come out in support of much of the work of Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens is about as far from an anarchaist as you can get; he's written for the imperialist think tank Project For a New American Century. Chomsky and Hitchens have written both in support and criticism for various portions of each other's work.

      Chomsky also puts a lot of his work online for free for someone motivated by profit.
      http://www.chomsky.info/
      http://www.zmag .org/chomsky/index.cfm

      (An intresting side note: Noam Chomsky has copyrighed his more recent writting, not to himself, but to his family. Perhaps he is in worse health then he has publicaly disclosed.)

      NC has a lot of important things to say and we shouldn't dismiss it out of hand because it contradicts the more conservative popular voices. Radicals should also not take his word as the gospel truth and only use it as a starting point for their own inquiry into more primary sources.

      --
      ------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
  4. Parrot species... by RyanFenton · · Score: 4, Interesting


    The parrot and cockatoo species of birds offer some amazing insight into the likely evolution of intelligence and social interaction outside the human/mammal pathway.

    To start with, birds in general have their origins traced back to dinosaur-era reptiles. That's a pretty huge developmental shift between humanity and bird.

    Yet, many species of birds can not only learn to speak human words, but they can learn context and how to use those words to manipulate people and other creatures. The birds in my parents pet store have learned more than just how to act in order to get treats, but how to manipulate people and other animals for seemingly the sheer pleasures and social interaction of it. It's hard to think of such use of intelligence as a base condition of animals that were ancestors of both mammals and dinosaurs - it seems more likely that intelligence itself is an independantly developed extension of logic.

    As a smaller-scale example, Cockatoos are a more ancient species of bird than modern parrots. They also develop intelligence of many sorts, though of a more social nature. They can learn to speak words and immitate, but use the manipulation of those words on a more purely social level than parrots. It's somewhat amazing that such a mobile and diverse set of species as birds can each acquire different uses for language and intelligence - perhaps if it weren't for the necissary limitations of flight (weight, head-body aspect ratio), the intelligent species of our planet would have been birds, not mammals.

    This is no hard evidence, but it also seems to make the possibility of intelligent life outside our known observed environments seem less unlikely too - especially if it can develop in so seemingly independant circumstances, despite a somewhat shared environment.

    Ryan Fenton

  5. Re:But does this explain... by Ieshan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No, but a good number of birds are mimics or partial mimics.

    No idea if you were being serious. The family Mimidae (Mockingbirds, Thrasher, etc.) and others copy wild song into their own songs.

  6. Grammar by xiaomonkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Some linguistics & psycholinguistics (e.g Norm Chompsky and Steve Pinker) argue the human brain is unique in that it is able to quickly master the complex grammar present in all human languages.

    In fact there is even a mathematical proof that seems to indicate that human languages should be technically unlearn-able (google: EM Gold language grammar - "Language identification in the limit"). IIRC - the synopsis being that, human languages are at least as sophisticated as context free languages (and can to some degree be modeled by context free languages) and the grammar of context free languages should not be learnable from the sort of linguistic input available to a child.

    So...anyhow, I'm not so sure if studying how birds learn a sequence of sounds really gets at the more interesting aspects of human language acquisition. I mean it's probably interesting in terms of how animals, and even people, learn to produce simple sequences of sounds.

    But, for human language? Or, at least for the interesting, i.e. uniquely human, parts of it? For that you probably need to either study people, or possibly very similar animals like other primates.

    1. Re:Grammar by enehta · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This sort of work certainly sheds no light on syntax and semantics and the visibly complicated bits of language, but there are certainly other bits which can be influenced by this research. The fields of phonetics in particular, as well as phonology, do care about the production of simple sounds - because it's not always simple.

      To take one example, try saying the words "cats" and "dogs" - notice that the "s" at the end of "dogs" sounds more like a 'z'. Is that because of a motor program, which tells the vocal folds to keep vibrating? Or is it a higher level process? At first glance, you'd probably say that it's a motor thing - why bother stopping the vocal fold vibration when it's easier to keep it going. But what of languages where it would be an 's' in that spot? Their motor "program" is different, so it can't be a "this is the only way it can be done" sort of thing. And what about perception? Clearly, English speakers recognize both as the same thing in terms of "oh, that's plural" until they think about it closely, but that's more than a motor issue. (This is only the most basic of problems, but there are plenty of others.)

      In other words, learning the limitations and capabilities of the motor system helps separate the purely physical from the higher level processes - which may indeed be human-unique.

      And birds are a heck of a lot easier to work with than small screamy children.

      --
      Watch out for the penguins!
  7. Re:Oh sure! by enehta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There may be a double-standard, true - but you're still being interesting to linguists.

    (Check out Dr. Alexander Z. Guiora's work on "The Effects of Experimentally Induced Change in Ego States on Pronunciation Ability in a Second Language." (and a few more studies in Language Learning) He and his colleagues, back in the '70s, examined the way impaired subjects (drunk, hypnotized, under the influence of valium...) pronounced foreign languages they knew. Interestingly enough, these subjects had better pronunciation when drunk etc. than sober! So it's all about making yourself interesting to someone and having their grants pay for the fun...)

    --
    Watch out for the penguins!
  8. Pentacostals by technoCon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've heard that linguistically speaking, the speech that Pentacostals utter when they speak in Tongues, resembles the babbling of baby talk. If we could get a cooperative Pentacostal to take a PET scan while speaking in tongues, we could identify which area of the brain is active during this phenomenon. I suspect that this will correspond to the same bit of circuitry this research identifies.

    Disclaimer: Even if we find a neurobiological basis for this religious phenomenon, it will neither confirm nor deny God is involved. Faith will merely assert that that deity is using this mechanism. I'm not Pentacostal, but I don't think speaking in tongues is "of the devil," either.

    1. Re:Pentacostals by andreyw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Any basis to claim these Pentecostals aren't just acting it up?

  9. Re:But does this explain... by bleckywelcky · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Exactly. This is why parrots that grow up in human environments can learn to talk. Now they aren't necessarily able to produce complete sentences, but they'll say 'bye' when you leave, 'hello' when you arrive, 'food' when they're hungry, and tons of other action-related words. They'll even mimic your actions to get other animals (or people) to come. They'll call the cats by saying "here kitty kitty", whistle for the dogs, or mimic the phone ringing to get a human :)

  10. My observations by teh+merry+reaper · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'm the owner of a Quaker Parakeet, a breed of parrot that's known for it's verbal skill, especially among my neighbors :P

    From what I've seen, he has learned many phrases and words over the years, and is able to successfully use them in correct conversational context. For example, if you insult him, he will reply with a stinging "Cat!" He also asks "what's that?" when he sees a new item in a room, and laughs at jokes in movies.

    What relates to this article, however, is his habit of creating random vocalizations. Often he will speak in a chaotic combination of "human-like" noises and settle on a couple that pique his fancy. A few days ago he was angry with me and started his mumblings while on my girlfriend's shoulder. He leaned closer to her ear and after a couple seconds he said something that closely resembled "Bosco bites people, Bosco bites people, Bosco bites (my name)." It was quite eerie.

    My other random though was the possible connections this has to creativity. Is this the section of the brain that humans use while composing random, new music? What about scat singers who sing random combinations of sounds?

    --
    6x9=42
  11. Birds are not "bird brained" by threaded · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I keep Cockatoos. I never intended to have such large birds as pets, and would most certainly not encourage it. I landed up with them as a "gift" as the previous owner found them too difficult.

    I would put their overall intelligence at around the 4 or 5 year human. With the addition that they are the most expert lock pickers.

    Imagine if you will the tantrums of a 4/5 year old, add that the 4/5 year can fly, has a set of tools like a combination hammer, ice-pick, file, and nut cracker, and absolutely knows which items dotted about are the most valuable to destroy.

    Often one of them imitates the phone ringing as I am about to leave the house. I could swear the blessed things are all sharing the joke.

    I am often left pondering: who here is the pet?

  12. Re:But does this explain... by LadyLucky · · Score: 2, Interesting
    They've got nothing on the Kea, which is a Parrot native to New Zealand.

    These are sufficienly curious and smart that they are capable of opening a zipped up bag, pulling out a lunch box, opening that lunchbox and eating what it finds inside.

    That's a non-trivial achievement. I've known people that couldn't get that far.

    --
    dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
  13. Bird brain and human speech? by earwiggie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are many good human speech models out there (e.g. DIVA from http://speechlab.bu.edu ). The bird brain research is interesting but one can take the comparison between birds and humans only so far. For example, it is quite well known that sound localization mechanisms in bird and mammalian brains are entirely different.

  14. Re:But does this explain... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting
    We have a patagonian conure that is learning to greet people by holding up one foot and saying "hello", and a citron cockatoo who will [occasionally] whistle for your attention (I'm no musician so I don't know the notes, but it's the classic up-down-up slide whistle sound that normally means pay attention.) She also will occasionally refer to birds other than herself as "pretty bird", which is cute. She DOES know what pretty means, and what bird means, separately.

    My other parrot just mutters, I'm not sure she knows what talking is actually about...

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  15. Re:But does this explain... by Verteiron · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Budgies, parakeets and cockatiels will also imitate the phone ring, especially if your phone has a high-pitched (electronic) ringer. My parents' budgies would both do the "ring" sound, and then proceed to apparently fight each other to see who could do it louder.

    On another note, what struck me as odd is that when a cockatiel learns new sounds, it's almost as if these "overwrite" certain reflexive noises. As a baby, the 'tiel would shriek or squawk when startled. As an adult, she will now make a particular learned sound, over and over and over, when she's startled or spooked. When she's hungry, she'll imitate the dryer buzzer. Essentially all of her "built-in" sounds have been replaced by learned ones.

    --
    End of lesson. You may press the button.
  16. Re:But does this explain... by Audacious · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This reminds me of one of my aunts who had a cockatiel. The thing learned how to call the dog's name in the exact same voice as my aunt. It would then wait for my aunt to go into another room, walk up to the screen door, and begin tormenting the dog by calling its name as if it were time for my aunt to feed it.

    After the dog was frothing at the mouth, barking hysterically, and slamming into the back screen door, the bird would calmly walk away and hide under the nearest table while my aunt (upon hearing all of the racket) would confront the dog with a puzzled "What's the matter with you?"

    It took her about a month to catch the bird in the act. The bird was that sneaky.

    --
    Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke. :-)