A cognitive framework for mate choice and species recognition

American Naturalist

Volumn 167, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 28-42

  Phelps, Steven M ^a,b   Rand, A Stanley ^b   Ryan, Michael J ^b,c  

^a University of Florida ^*  (United States)

^b SMITHSONIAN TROPICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Panama)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

Animal cognition; Animal communication; Decision theory; Mate choice; Perceptual error; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

MATE CHOICE; MODEL; RECOGNITION; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; MALE; RECOGNITION; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SPECIES DIFFERENCE;

ANIMALS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COGNITION; FEMALE; MALE; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SPECIES SPECIFICITY;

ANIMALIA; ANURA; PHYSALAEMUS PUSTULOSUS;

EID: 29844433439     PISSN: 00030147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/498538     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
2. Birdsall, T. G., and R. A. Roberts. 1965. Theory of signal detectability-deferred-decision theory. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 37:1067-1074.
3. Boake, C. R. B., M. P. DeAngelis, and D. K. Andreadis. 1997. Is sexual selection and species recognition a continuum? mating behavior of the stalk-eyed fly Drosophila heteroneura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 94:12442-12445.
4. Bosch, J., A. S. Rand, and M. J. Ryan. 2000. Signal variation and call preferences for whine frequency in the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 49:62-66.
5. Bradbury, J. W., and S. L. Vehrencamp. 1998. Principles of animal communication. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.
6. _. 2000. Economic models of animal communication. Animal Behaviour 59:259-268.
7. Bush, S. L., H. C. Gerhardt, and J. Schul. 2002. Pattern recognition and call preferences in treefrogs (anura: Hylidae): a quantitative analysis using a no-choice paradigm. Animal Behaviour 63:7-14.
8. Doherty, J. A. 1985. Phonotaxis in the cricket, Gryllus-bimaculatus degeer: comparisons of choice and no-choice paradigms. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 157:279-289.
9. Dooling, R. J., and S. H. Hulse. 1989. The comparative psychology of audition: perceiving complex sounds. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
10. Endler, J. A. 1992. Signals, signal conditions, and the direction of evolution. American Naturalist 139(suppl.):S125-S153.
11. Gerhardt, H. C. 1982. Sound pattern-recognition in some North American treefrogs (Anura, Hylidae): implications for mate choice. American Zoologist 22:581-595.
12. Green, D. M., and J. A. Swets. 1966. Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Wiley, New York.
13. Hankison, S. J., and M. R. Morris. 2003. Avoiding a compromise between sexual selection and species recognition: female swordtail fish assess multiple species-specific cues. Behavioral Ecology 14: 282-287.
14. Higgie, M., S. Chenoweth, and M. W. Blows. 2000. Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science 290:519-521.
15. Johnstone, R. A. 1994. Honest signaling, perceptual error and the evolution of all-or-nothing displays. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 256:169-175.
16. _. 1998. Conspiratorial whispers and conspicuous displays: games of signal detection. Evolution 52:1554-1563.
17. Johnstone, R. A., and A. Grafen. 1992. Error-prone signaling. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 248:229-233.
18. Kirkpatrick, M., and V. Ravigne. 2002. Speciation by natural and sexual selection: models and experiments. American Naturalist 159(suppl.):S22-S35.
19. Lande, R. 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 78:3721-3725.
20. Littlejohn, M. J., and T. C. Michaud. 1959. Mating call discrimination by females of Strecker's chorus frog (Pseudacris streckeri). Texas Journal of Science 11:87-89.
21. Luce, R. D. 1959. Individual choice behavior: a theoretical analysis. Wiley, New York.
22. _. 1986. Oxford Psychology Series. Vol. 8. Response times: their role in inferring elementary mental organization. Oxford University Press, New York.
23. Luttbeg, B. 1996. A comparative Bayes tactic for mate assessment and choice. Behavioral Ecology 7:451-460.
24. Manski, C. 1977. The structure of random utility models. Theory and Decision 8:229-254.
25. Nelson, D. A., and P. Marler. 1990. The perception of birdsong and an ecological concept of signal space. Pages 443-478 in W. C. Stebbins and M. A. Berkley, eds. Comparative perception. Vol. 2. Complex signals. Wiley, New York.
26. Pfennig, K. S. 1998. The evolution of mate choice and the potential for conflict between species and mate-quality recognition. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 265:1743-1748.
27. Phelps, S. M., and M. J. Ryan. 1998. Neural networks predict response biases of female túngara frogs. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 265:279-285.
28. Phelps, S. M., M. J. Ryan, and A. S. Rand. 2001. Vestigial preference functions in neural networks and túngara frogs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 98:13161-13166.
29. Pike, R., and P. Ryder. 1973. Response latencies in yes/no detection task: an assessment of two basic models. Perception and Psychophysics 13:224-232.
30. Rand, A. S., and M. J. Ryan. 1981. The adaptive significance of a complex vocal repertoire in a Neotropical frog. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 57:209-214.
31. Reeve, H. K. 1989. The evolution of conspecific acceptance thresholds. American Naturalist 133:407-435.
32. Ritchie, M. G. 1996. The shape of female mating preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 93: 14628-14631.
33. Ryan, M. J. 1985. The túngara frog: a study in sexual selection and animal communication. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
34. Ryan, M. J., and A. S. Rand. 1993a. Sexual selection and signal evolution: the ghosts of biases past. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 340:187-195.
35. _. 1993b. Species recognition and sexual selection as a unitary problem in animal communication. Evolution 47:647-657.
36. _. 1995. Female responses to ancestral advertisement calls in túngara frogs. Science 269:390-392.
37. _. 2001. Feature-weighting in signal recognition and discrimination by túngara frogs. Pages 86-101 in M. J. Ryan, ed. Anuran communication. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.
38. Ryan, M. J., J. H. Fox, W. Wilczynski, and A. S. Rand. 1990. Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Nature 343:66-67.
39. Ryan, M. J., W. Rand, P. L. Hurd, S. M. Phelps, and A. S. Rand. 2003. Generalization in response to mate recognition signals. American Naturalist 161:380-394.
40. Schul, J., D. von Helversen, and T. Weber. 1998. Selective phonotaxis in Tettigonia cantans and T. viridissima in song recognition and discrimination. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 182:687-694.
41. Thurstone, L. L. 1959. The measurement of values. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
42. Wagner, W. E. 1998. Measuring female mating preferences. Animal Behaviour 55:1029-1042.
43. Wilczynski, W., A. S. Rand, and M. J. Ryan. 1995. The processing of spectral cues by the call analysis system of the tungara frog, Physlalaemus pustulosus. Animal Behavior 49:911-929.
44. Wiley, R. H. 1994. Errors, exaggeration, and deception in animal communication. Pages 157-189 in L. A. Real, ed. Behavioral mechanisms in evolutionary ecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.