Article

Birds, primates, and spoken language origins: behavioral phenotypes and neurobiological substrates

Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience 01/2012; 4:12. DOI: 10.3389/fnevo.2012.00012
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Vocal learners such as humans and songbirds can learn to produce elaborate patterns of structurally organized vocalizations, whereas many other vertebrates such as non-human primates and most other bird groups either cannot or do so to a very limited degree. To explain the similarities among humans and vocal-learning birds and the differences with other species, various theories have been proposed. One set of theories are motor theories, which underscore the role of the motor system as an evolutionary substrate for vocal production learning. For instance, the motor theory of speech and song perception proposes enhanced auditory perceptual learning of speech in humans and song in birds, which suggests a considerable level of neurobiological specialization. Another, a motor theory of vocal learning origin, proposes that the brain pathways that control the learning and production of song and speech were derived from adjacent motor brain pathways. Another set of theories are cognitive theories, which address the interface between cognition and the auditory-vocal domains to support language learning in humans. Here we critically review the behavioral and neurobiological evidence for parallels and differences between the so-called vocal learners and vocal non-learners in the context of motor and cognitive theories. In doing so, we note that behaviorally vocal-production learning abilities are more distributed than categorical, as are the auditory-learning abilities of animals. We propose testable hypotheses on the extent of the specializations and cross-species correspondences suggested by motor and cognitive theories. We believe that determining how spoken language evolved is likely to become clearer with concerted efforts in testing comparative data from many non-human animal species.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Erich Jarvis, Jul 01, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
134 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The forkhead domain FOXP2 and FOXP1 transcription factors are implicated in several cognitive disorders with language deficits, notably autism, and thus play a central role in learned vocal motor behavior in humans. Although a similar role for FoxP2 and FoxP1 is proposed for other vertebrate species, including songbirds, the neurodevelopmental expression of these genes are unknown in a species with lifelong vocal learning abilities. Like humans, budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus) learn new vocalizations throughout their entire lifetime. Like songbirds, budgerigars have distinct brain nuclei for vocal learning, which include the magnocellular nucleus of the medial striatum (MMSt), a basal ganglia region that is considered developmentally and functionally analogous to Area X in songbirds. Here we used in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry to investigate FoxP2 and FoxP1 expression in the MMSt of juvenile and adult budgerigars. We found FoxP2 mRNA and protein expression levels in the MMSt that were lower than the surrounding striatum throughout development and adulthood. In contrast, FoxP1 mRNA and protein had an elevated MMSt/striatum expression ratio as birds matured, regardless of their sex. These results show that life-long vocal plasticity in budgerigars is associated with persistent low-level FoxP2 expression in the budgerigar MMSt, and suggests the possibility that FoxP1 plays an organizational role in the neurodevelopment of vocal motor circuitry. Thus, developmental regulation of the FoxP2 and FoxP1 genes in the basal ganglia appears essential for vocal mimicry in a range of species that possess this relatively rare trait. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    Developmental Neurobiology 11/2014; DOI:10.1002/dneu.22247 · 4.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved. We show that, to date, (1) studies of nonhuman animals provide virtually no relevant parallels to human linguistic communication, and none to the underlying biological capacity; (2) the fossil and archaeological evidence does not inform our understanding of the computations and representations of our earliest ancestors, leaving details of origins and selective pressure unresolved; (3) our understanding of the genetics of language is so impoverished that there is little hope of connecting genes to linguistic processes any time soon; (4) all modeling attempts have made unfounded assumptions, and have provided no empirical tests, thus leaving any insights into language's origins unverifiable. Based on the current state of evidence, we submit that the most fundamental questions about the origins and evolution of our linguistic capacity remain as mysterious as ever, with considerable uncertainty about the discovery of either relevant or conclusive evidence that can adjudicate among the many open hypotheses. We conclude by presenting some suggestions about possible paths forward.
    Frontiers in Psychology 05/2014; 5:401. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00401 · 2.80 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Efforts to understand nervous system structure and function have received new impetus from the federal Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative. Comparative analyses can contribute to this effort by leading to the discovery of general principles of neural circuit design, information processing, and gene-structure-function relationships that are not apparent from studies on single species. We here propose to extend the comparative approach to nervous system ‘maps’ comprising molecular, anatomical, and physiological data. This research will identify which neural features are likely to generalize across species, and which are unlikely to be broadly conserved. It will also suggest causal relationships between genes, development, adult anatomy, physiology, and, ultimately, behavior. These causal hypotheses can then be tested experimentally. Finally, insights from comparative research can inspire and guide technological development. To promote this research agenda, we recommend that teams of investigators coalesce around specific research questions and select a set of ‘reference species’ to anchor their comparative analyses. These reference species should be chosen not just for practical advantages, but also with regard for their phylogenetic position, behavioral repertoire, well-annotated genome, or other strategic reasons. We envision that the nervous systems of these reference species will be mapped in more detail than those of other species. The collected data may range from the molecular to the behavioral, depending on the research question. To integrate across levels of analysis and across species, standards for data collection, annotation, archiving, and distribution must be developed and respected. To that end, it will help to form networks or consortia of researchers and centers for science, technology, and education that focus on organized data collection, distribution, and training. These activities could be supported, at least in part, through existing mechanisms at NSF, NIH, and other agencies. It will also be important to develop new integrated software and database systems for cross-species data analyses. Multidisciplinary efforts to develop such analytical tools should be supported financially. Finally, training opportunities should be created to stimulate multidisciplinary, integrative research into brain structure, function, and evolution. J. Comp. Neurol., 2014. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 05/2014; 522(7). DOI:10.1002/cne.23568 · 3.51 Impact Factor