July 9, 2015

July 9, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is the second writing about findings that were published by Owren and Rendall in “An affect conditioning model of nonhuman primate vocal signaling” (1997) and “The organizing principles of vocal production”  (2010). Yesterday I discussed the asymmetry between sender and receiver, which is as true for primates as for human beings. “The subordinate individual has less opportunity to shape the outcome of an interaction, especially in the case of agonistic encounters.” The subordinate human who tries to shape the outcome of an interaction may risk losing his job. 

The “unconditioned effects of calling” on which the subordinate is believed to rely under such circumstances, is an perfect example of Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), while in “affiliative situations” he or she will be able to resort to Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) by “exploiting both conditioned and unconditioned responses.” Furthermore, “based on learning theory, it is expected that acoustic cues to individual identity are important mediators of conditioned affects occurring in receivers.”

“As these responses are shaped by the history of interactions between any two animals, the identity of a caller is a crucial determinant of the significance of a vocalization for a given receiver.” These distinctive, most stable cues, which signify the caller’s identity to the receiver, include “features related to vocal-tract filtering, meaning characteristic amplification and attenuation effects produced by cavities located above the larynx.” These cues consist of “low –frequency, tonal calls with rich harmonic structure and noisy vocalizations of intermediate amplitude.” These sounds are referred to as “sonants and gruffs.” This resembles SVB. 

“High-frequency tonal calls and high-amplitude noisy vocalizations”, however, ”appear to be poorly suited for vocal-tract filtering.” Such NVB sounds are called “squeaks, shrieks and screams.” It is necessary to recognize that such ‘ancient’ vocalizations occur in humans that these sounds determine who is influencing who in our social hierarchy. 

"The acoustic design of primate vocal repertoire” constrains both the elicitation of “unconditioned and conditioned effects.”Something similar is happening in humans, who also produce “bouts of acoustically potent vocalizations, with both repetition and variability shown in the call stream.”

Just like primates, human speakers use vocalizations “to elicit conditioned responses.” However, SVB vocalizations, as they are more attuned, refined and sensitive and also more articulate, “take advantage of any such learning that has already been instilled” more so than NVB vocalizations. The kind of learning that NVB instills is blunt and unsophisticated and always resulting in counter-control as it is based on coercion and forcefulness, but  learning instilled with SVB does never result in such responses.

Since humans and primates recognize each other by how they sound, humans would say that someone doesn’t sound like him or herself, if his or her voice is different from how they usually experience it. “The inclusion of discrete, salient cues to individual identity is paramount.” 

Similarities of the approaches investigating primate communication are overlooked, because a functional account of how vocal signals are used is not widely accepted among animal researchers. This matter is "discussed" by these authors in writing, but not in an actual conversation. When they assume a “well-established, species-typical communication system”, in which “signaling occurs because it has in the evolutionary past provided a net benefit to the fitness interests of the sender by influencing the immediate or later behavior of the receiver,” they are not sitting across from each other, so that they can see and hear and immediately respond to each other. 

The immense difference between writing and reading versus talking and listening is overlooked. As long as this is the case, this “communication system” will not be acknowledged. As long as primate and non-primate researchers continue to write more than talk, they will not be able to acknowledge that their academically sanctioned lack of talking increases NVB and decreases SVB. Most scientific writing is based on NVB and this has turned people away from studying and from become a scientist.