4.6 Review

Individual vocal recognition across taxa: a review of the literature and a look into the future

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2019.0479

Keywords

individual vocal recognition; recognition; bioacoustics; vocal behaviour

Categories

Funding

  1. European Union [794412]
  2. Struktur-und Innovations funds fur die Forschung of the State of Baden-Wurttemberg
  3. Max Planck Society
  4. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German research Foundation) under Germany's Excellence Strategy [EXC 2117-422037984]
  5. NSF [IOS-1355061]
  6. Office of Naval Research [N00014-09-1-1074, N00014-14-1-0635]
  7. Army Research Office [W911NG-11-1-0385, W911NF14-1-0431]
  8. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [794412] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Individual vocal recognition (IVR) has been well studied in mammals and birds. These studies have primarily delved into understanding IVR in specific limited contexts (e.g. parent-offspring and mate recognition) where individuals discriminate one individual from all others. However, little research has examined IVR in more socially demanding circumstances, such as when an individual discriminates all individuals in their social or familial group apart. In this review, we describe what IVR is and suggest splitting studies of IVR into two general types based on what questions they answer (IVR-singular, and IVR-multiple). We explain how we currently test for IVR, and many of the benefits and drawbacks of different methods. We address why IVR is so prevalent in the animal kingdom, and the circumstances in which it is often found. Finally, we explain current weaknesses in IVR research including temporality, specificity, and taxonomic bias, and testing paradigms, and provide some solutions to address these weaknesses. This article is part of the theme issue 'Signal detection theory in recognition systems: from evolving models to experimental tests'.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available