The computational mechanisms of mate choice

Ethology

Volumn 116, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 283-291

  Castellano, Sergio ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TURIN   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; FROG; MATE CHOICE; MODEL TEST; NUMERICAL MODEL; POPULATION ECOLOGY; SIGNAL; TAXIS;

HYLA; HYLA INTERMEDIA;

EID: 77951280594     PISSN: 01791613     EISSN: 14390310     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01745.x     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Andersson M. Sexuals Selection 1994, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
2. Bentsen C L, Hunt J, Jennions M D, Brooks R. Complex multivariate sexual selection on male acoustic signaling in a wild population of Teleogryllus commodus. Am. Nat. 2006, 167:102-116.
3. Bogacz R. Optimal decision-making theories: linking neurobiology with behaviour. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2007, 11:118-125.
4. Bradbury J W, Vehrencamp S L. Principles of Animal Communication 1998, Sinauer, Sunderland, MA
5. Brooks R, Hunt J, Blows M W, Smith M J, Bussiere L F, Jennions M D. Experimental evidence for multivariate stabilizing sexual selection. Evolution 2005, 59:871-880.
6. Burke E J, Murphy C G. How female barking treefrogs, Hyla gratiosa, use multiple call characteristics to select a mate. Anim. Behav. 2007, 74:1463-1472.
7. Busemeyer J R, Townsend J T. Decision field theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in uncertain environment. Psychol. Rev. 1993, 100:432-459.
8. Busemeyer J R, Jessup R K, Johnson J G, Townsend J T. Building bridges between neural models and complex decision making behaviour. Neural Netw. 2006, 19:1047-1058.
9. Candolin U. The use of multiple cue in mate choice. Biol. Rev. 2003, 78:575-595.
10. Castellano S. Towards an information-processing theory of mate choice. Anim. Behav. 2009, 78:1493-1497.
11. Castellano S, Cermelli P. Reconciling sexual selection to species recognition: a process-based model of mating decision. J. Theor. Biol. 2006, 242:529-538.
12. Castellano S, Rosso A. Variation in call temporal properties and female preferences in Hyla intermedia. Behaviour 2006, 143:405-424.
13. Castellano S, Rosso A. Female preferences for multiple attributes in the acoustic signals of the Italian treefrog, Hyla intermedia. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2007, 61:1293-1302.
14. Castellano S, Cuatto B, Rinella R, Rosso A, Giacoma C. The advertisement calls of the European treefrogs: a multi-level study of variation. Ethology 2002, 108:75-89.
15. Castellano S, Marconi V, Zanollo V, Berto G. Alternative mating tactics in Hyla intermedia. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2009a, 63:1109-1118.
16. Castellano S, Zanollo V, Marconi V, Berto G. The mechanisms of sexual selection in a lek-breeding anuran, Hyla intermedia. Anim. Behav. 2009b, 77:213-224.
17. Cox D R, Miller H D. The Theory of Stochastic Processes 1965, Chapman and Hall, London
18. Fawcett T W, Johnstone R A. Optimal assessment of multiple cues. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 2003, 270:1637-1643.
19. Gerhardt H C. Phonotaxis in female frogs and toads: execution and design of experiments. Methods in Comparative Psychoacoustics 1995, 455:483. Klump G MDooling R JFay R RStebbins W C. In, eds, John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp
20. Gerhardt H C, Huber F. Acoustic Communication in Insects and Anurans 2002, Chicago University Press, Chicago
21. Gold J I, Shadlen M N. The neural basis of decision making. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 2007, 30:535-574.
22. Gualla F, Cermelli P, Castellano S. The role of amplifier in animal communication. J. Theor. Biol. 2008, 252:255-271.
23. Jennions M D, Petrie M. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol. Rev. 1997, 72:283-327.
24. Kodric-Brown A, Nicoletto P F. Female choice in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata): the interaction between male color and display. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2001, 50:346-351.
25. Künzler R, Bakker T C M. Female preferences for single and combined traits in computer animated stickleback males. Behav. Ecol. 2001, 12:681-685.
26. Partan S R, Marler P. Communication goes multimodal. Science 1999, 283:1272-1273.
27. Partan S R, Marler P. Issues in the classification of multimodal communication sygnals. Am. Nat. 2005, 166:231-245.
28. Paterson H E H. The recognition concept of species. Species and Speciation 1985, 21-29. Vrba E. In, ed, Transvaal Museum Monograph 4, Pretoria, pp
29. Phelps S M, Rand S A, Ryan M J. A cognitive framework for mate choice and species recognition. Am. Nat. 2006, 167:28-42.
30. Rand A S, Ryan M J. The adaptive significance of a complex vocal repertoire in a Neotropical frog. Z. Tierpsychol. 1981, 57:209-214.
31. Ratcliff R, Smith P L. Comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. Psychol. Rev. 2004, 111:333-367.
32. Real L A. Search theory and mate choice I. Models of single-sex discrimination. Am. Nat. 1990, 136:376-404.
33. Rosso A, Castellano S, Giacoma C. Preferences for call spectral properties in Hyla intermedia. Ethology 2006, 112:599-607.
34. Ryan M J. The Túngara Frog 1985, University of Chicago Press, Chicago
35. Ryan M J, Rand A S. Sexual selection in female perceptual space: how female Túngara frogs perceive and respond to complex population variation in acoustic signals. Evolution 2003, 57:2608-2618.
36. Rybak F, Sureau G, Aubin T. Functional coupling of acoustic and chemical signals in the courtship behaviour of the male Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 2002, 269:695-701.
37. Schall J D. Neural basis of deciding, choosing and acting. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2001, 2:33-42.
38. Scheuber H, Jacot A, Brinkhof M W G. The effect of past condition on a multicomponent sexual signal. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 2003, 270:1779-1784.
39. Scheuber H, Jacot A, Brinkhof M W G. Female preference for multiple condition-dependent components of a sexually selected signal. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 2004, 271:2453-2457.
40. Schnupp J W H, King A J. Neural processing: the logic of multiplication in single neurons. Curr. Biol. 2001, 11:640-642.
41. Schul J, Bush S L. Non-parallel coevolution of sender and receiver in the acoustic communication system of treefrogs. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B 2002, 269:1847-1852.
42. Templeton A. Once again, why are there so many species of Drosophila? Evolution 1979, 33:513-517.
43. Wiegmann D D, Real L A, Capone T A, Ellner S. Some distinguishing features of models of search behaviour and mate choice. Am. Nat. 1996, 147:188-204.