ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2022
A cross-species framework to identify vocal learning abilities in mammals.
Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unifying the gestural and the vocal in the evolution of culture, the arts, and the brain.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Emotion in Nonverbal Communication: Comparing Animal and Human Vocalizations and Human Text Messages.Emotion review : journal of the International Society for Research on Emotion · 2025Article
- Elephants as an animal model for self-domestication.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Vocal tract allometry in a mammalian vocal learner.The Journal of experimental biology · 2022Article
- Voice modulation: from origin and mechanism to social impact.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vocal production learning (VPL) is the experience-driven ability to produce novel vocal signals through imitation or modification of existing vocalizations. A parallel strand of research investigates acoustic allometry, namely how information about body size is conveyed by acoustic signals. Recently, we proposed that deviation from acoustic allometry principles as a result of sexual selection may have been an intermediate step towards the evolution of vocal learning abilities in mammals. Adopting a more hypothesis-neutral stance, here we perform phylogenetic regressions and other analyses further testing a potential link between VPL and being an allometric outlier. We find that multiple species belonging to VPL clades deviate from allometric scaling but in the opposite direction to that expected from size exaggeration mechanisms. In other words, our correlational approach finds an association between VPL and being an allometric outlier. However, the direction of this association, contra our original hypothesis, may indicate that VPL did not necessarily emerge via sexual selection for size exaggeration: VPL clades show higher vocalization frequencies than expected. In addition, our approach allows us to identify species with potential for VPL abilities: we hypothesize that those outliers from acoustic allometry lying above the regression line may be VPL species. Our results may help better understand the cross-species diversity, variability and aetiology of VPL, which among other things is a key underpinning of speech in our species. This article is part of the theme issue 'Voice modulation: from origin and mechanism to social impact (Part II)'.
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.