ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2020
Complex signals alter recognition accuracy and conspecific acceptance thresholds.
Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Categorical identity signatures can reduce host error rates during brood parasitism.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Individual recognition is associated with viewpoint-independent face recognition in a species-specific way.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Nature's headlamps: A unique light-focusing structure in Parasesarma de Man, 1895 mangrove crabs.Ecology · 2025Article
- Fake news? The impact of information mismatch on mating behaviour.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- The evolution of manipulative cheating.eLife · 2022Article
- Long-distance vocalizations of spotted hyenas contain individual, but not group, signatures.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022Article
- Signal detection, acceptance thresholds and the evolution of animal recognition systems.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many aspects of behaviour depend on recognition, but accurate recognition is difficult because the traits used for recognition often overlap. For example, brood parasitic birds mimic host eggs, so it is challenging for hosts to discriminate between their own eggs and parasitic eggs. Complex signals that occur in multiple sensory modalities or involve multiple signal components are thought to facilitate accurate recognition. However, we lack models that explore the effect of complex signals on the evolution of recognition systems. Here, we use individual-based models with a genetic algorithm to test how complex signals influence recognition thresholds, signaller phenotypes and receiver responses. The model has three main results. First, complex signals lead to more accurate recognition than simple signals. Second, when two signals provide different amounts of information, receivers will rely on the more informative signal to make recognition decisions and may ignore the less informative signal. As a result, the particular traits used for recognition change over evolutionary time as sender and receiver phenotypes evolve. Third, complex signals are more likely to evolve when recognition errors are high cost than when errors are low cost. Overall, redundant, complex signals are an evolutionarily stable mechanism to reduce recognition errors. This article is part of the theme issue 'Signal detection theory in recognition systems: from evolving models to experimental tests'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.