July 23, 2015

July 23, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

The following writing is my second response to the paper “Two Organizing Principles of Vocal Production: Implications for Nonhuman and Human Primates” by Owren, Amoss & Rendall (2010). 

Human beings have existed for eons of time before the arrival of language. Structures which once only facilitated vocalizations are still there and made languages possible. I say ‘languages’ not to indicate French or Japanese, for which structurally no differences are expected. A child learns Japanese or French just as readily. ‘Languages’ refer to our biology, to Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) or Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), the two universal subclasses of human vocal verbal behavior. When humans feel threatened, they produce distinctively different sounds than when they feel safe.  

As these subsets are based on our evolutionary or phylogenetic history, I predict that structural differences account for the rates of SVB and NVB. Since ontogenetic development emerges from phylogenetic history, it is predicted that those people who have learned during their lifetime to have more instances of SVB and less instances of NVB, are those who were already genetically predisposed to do so. By contrast, those who capitalize on NVB and take advantage of the SVB of others, adhere to hierarchical interaction and relationship determined by biology. 

The SVB/NVB distinction posits that a much bigger part of how we talk refers to our phylogenetic than to our ontogenetic history.  Changing the way we talk, as individuals, is not possible for this reason. This is not to say, however, that there are no epi-genetic effects which can be inhibited. I have worked with mentally ill, traumatized and disabled clients and I have found that with each one of them progress was possible due to SVB.

The authors also mention a “second principle” which “concerns a phenomenon” they “dubbed dual neural pathways. Here, the critical observation is that when a species with an existing vocal system evolves a new functionally distinct vocalization capability, it occurs through the emergence of a second parallel neural pathway rather than through expansion of the extant circuitry. In other words, when individuals of a given taxon exhibit two functionally distinct vocal systems, the underlying neural circuitry is found to be organized in parallel pathways rather than as a single multipurpose system.” 

If my prediction is true, NVB and SVB are mediated by these parallel pathways. I am thinking the same way as these authors, who consider “affect to be centered on subcortical limbic structures and pathways.” Moreover, they write that “this usage will contrast with viewing cognition as more abstract and elaborated, with cortical processing, mental concepts, and symbolic representations playing a central role. Affective processing will be considered inherently less flexible than the cognitive variety, although learning and experience are likely important in both cases.” 

Although affect and cognition are intertwined, they are biologically, hierarchically intertwined, that is, emotions have a longer phylogenetic history than cognitions and are therefore more likely to have more impact on cognitions than the other way around. The SVB/NVB distinction therefore predicts that the flexibility of cognitive variety depends on positive affect. Moreover, negative affect is considered by this distinction as a hindrance to learning operant behavior. Although respondent learning can occur under negative affect inducing circumstances, these processes will always in one way or another constrain operant learning processes.

Many antropomorphizing primate researchers still don’t agree on the obvious fact that receivers don’t “encode specific information about predators,” but are influenced by “the arousal or motivational states of vocalizers.” It is unbelievable that this is still even an issue. Animals don’t have language and therefore they can’t have self-talk either. Only humans have self-talk, because they can be a speaker-as-own-listener. 

“Information processing” is an explanatory fiction, which doesn’t explain anything, but private speech or other behavior occurring within our own skin, such as thinking or remembering, is parsimoniously explained as  verbal behavior receded to a covert level. Denial of what is scientifically already known is made possible by NVB, which elevates what we say over how we say it. “Evidence from development and neural control of vocalization is compelling in this regard, showing that while some primate calls can function as if having the ‘‘cognitive and cortical’’ nature of spoken language, the production processes involved are nonetheless fundamentally “affective and subcortical.’’” These researchers provided a good example of “evidence from development.”

The authors noted that “one kind of production learning, namely that while young vervets may call to non-predator events, such as falling leaves and passing warthogs, these kinds of false alarms disappear over time. Yet, even this ‘‘mistaken’’ usage occurs in the ‘‘right’’ circumstances, for example, with eagle calls being elicited by stimuli such as falling leaves, but leopard alarms being reserved for terrestrial events, such as warthogs passing by.” Such evidence confirms “the larger conclusion that call production is generally highly constrained in these animals.” Similarly our human vocalizations are affectively constrained. Like vervet monkey’s, human infants also respond initially to a threat by “running to their mothers, or respond in ways that can increase rather than decrease their risk of being taken.”  Anyone who has ever been around a baby knows that “alarm call production” seem to be more or less “full blown” at birth and “functional responding emerges gradually” through the care that is proved by the mother, that is, “through social learning.” 

The ubiquity of NVB signifies how often social learning fails. Although SVB is needed to bond, affiliate, groom and to be social, although without SVB there would be no safety, connection, support, reciprocation or learning of complex forms of behavior, occurrence of SVB is relatively rare, as SVB is not accidental, but consciously decided. We consciously decide to stop in front of a red light and we can decide to have SVB. However, this will only be learned if we follow the scientific rules of human interaction.

July 22, 2015

July 22, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

The following writing is my first response to the paper “Two Organizing Principles of Vocal Production: Implications for Nonhuman

and Human Primates” by Owren, Amoss & Rendall (2010). 

One of the basic principles on which the Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) distinction is build, is the fact that if the speaker focuses too much on what he or she is saying, then he or she is more likely to produce NVB, while if he or she focuses more on how he or she is sounding, then he or she is more likely to produce SVB. 

Stated differently, our verbal fixation leads to a disconnect between the speaker’s verbal and nonverbal expression. Consequently, the NVB speaker says something different verbally and non-verbally. Only in SVB can there be congruence between the speaker’s verbal and nonverbal expression. SVB congruence is effortlessly understood by the receiver. From the fact that “affect has historically been given rather short shrift in the behavioral and neural sciences”, we can learn that the communication that is creating and maintaining this neglect is one which focuses more on what we say than how we say it. In other words, in NVB verbal fixation leads to nonverbal dissociation, while in SVB our nonverbal sensitivity unites nonverbal with verbal expression. Moreover, focus on nonverbal expression includes our verbal expression, since the former developmentally gave rise to the latter.  Adoption of a “cognitively based interpretation that downplayed the role of affect” is parsimoniously explained by the SVB/NVB distinction. 

The SVB/NVB distinction is congruent with "Affect Conditioning Model" (ACM), which, “after reviewing evidence concerning development and neural control of vocalization in primates and other nonhumans”, was extended with “two interrelated principles of production” which are applicable across a variety of species. Conservation of these behaviors must play an important role in human vocalizations as well. The first one of these principles is “a distinction between production-first and reception-first vocal systems, with the former showing little role of auditory experience or motor practice, affective triggering of calls, and limited flexibility in vocal acoustics.” This describes NVB, in which the speaker talks at, not with the listener. A child does that as he or she is too young to be verbal and can only be nonverbal.

Another explanation for NVB is the hierarchical relationship between dominant and subordinate animals. Given the “little role of auditory experience or motor practice, affective triggering of calls, and limited flexibility in vocal acoustics” it can be deduced that “production-first” vocal systems lack a feedback mechanism. In NVB the conversation between the speaker and the listener is not a bi-directional, but a uni-directional phenomenon. In colloquial terms: my-way-or-the-highway. “Reception-first vocal systems”, on the other hand, have “quite different characteristics, including a central role for auditory and motor experience, cognitive control over vocalization, and flexible vocal acoustics.” Such systems are believed to mediate SVB. Given the fact that “a central role” in reception-first systems goes to “auditory and motor experience”, we can deduce that in SVB the listener listens to him or herself while he or she speaks. 

The speaker-as-own-listener is aware of the feedback of his or her voice, which is simultaneously experienced in an auditory and proprioceptive manner. Furthermore, the SVB speaker’s “cognitive control” over his or her vocalizations is facilitated by his or her private speech, which is aligned with his or her public speech, which is just another way of saying that his or her verbal and nonverbal expressions are congruent. However, it is not ”cognitive control over vocalization”, but rather vocalizational control over cognition, which is facilitated by “flexible acoustics.”

In NVB the speaker wants the listener to listen to him or to her, but he or she is not listening to him or herself; that is, a NVB speaker is outwardly oriented. As the child who cries for its mother makes clear, such a speaker is not in touch with him or herself. The mother’s touch and attention is needed to regulate his or her affect to the point that he or she is calm again and feels in touch with him or herself. Being content and calm is the opposite of feeling threatened or fearfully or stressfully aroused. In the former, we are enough unto ourselves, but in the latter, we demand attention from others. NVB demandingness characterizes an outward orientation.  

July 21, 2015

July 21, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is the thirteenth writing which includes findings that were reported by the animal researchers Owren and Rendall in their paper “An affect conditioning model of nonhuman primate vocal signaling” (1997).

“The affect-conditioning model suggests that nonhuman primate vocalizations need not have “meaning” in the sense of transmitting referential information from a sender to a receiver.” 

Research on nonhuman primates brings us in touch with “the central role of affect” in vocal production. This makes us pay attention to how we as humans sound while we speak. By studying “monkey and ape sounds” researchers have found, however, that although they are “homologous to spontaneous human emotional vocalizations” they “have little relation to spoken language.” Nevertheless, we can learn a valuable lesson from this research on primates: by paying attention to how they sound, we begin to recognize that they are influencing each other affectively. If we would pay attention to how we sound, we would find out why and how we are influencing each other emotionally while we speak with our voice. 

Moreover, we would only do so if we would recognize that how we sound has “little relation to spoken language.” We would only be inclined to pay attention to how we sound, if we are not too overly concerned about what we say. If all the attention goes to what we say, we get carried away by words and we don’t really listen to ourselves while we speak. Our sound of our voice changes as function of us being fixated on our words. 

The authors note that “Darwin argued for close connections between animal calling and the internal states that today might be called arousal, motivation, and emotion—which we will here collectively refer to as affect.” Think for a moment: to what extent does a person’s tone of voice arouse us to speak or to listen? What does we sound like when we motivate, encourage and support others to speak or to listen? And, what does someone’s voice make us feel, and thus talk and listen like?

July 20, 2015

July 20, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

 

This is the thirteenth writing which includes findings that were reported by the animal researchers Owren and Rendall in their paper “An affect conditioning model of nonhuman primate vocal signaling” (1997).

I began to read this paper again just to make sure that I didn’t miss anything. In primate as well as in human vocalization “if the sender is dominant to the receiver” the sender has “ample opportunity to pair negative calls with negative outcomes” and “can routinely induce and subsequently elicit conditioned affective responses.” 

These conditioned autonomic responses of the receiver are adaptive as the  receiver has learned to respond appropriately to “individually distinct vocalizations prior to attacking or otherwise frightening another animal.” Since “the identity of the sender is the most important predictor of upcoming events” this animal’s “individually distinctive acoustic cues play a primary role in mediating any conditioning that occurs.” 

How a dominant person sounds has an immediate physiological effect on the subordinate receiver, who recognizes the “salient, discrete cues to individual identity.” The vocalizations which are called “sonants and gruffs” by the authors, map directly onto human Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB).

Interestingly, “sonants and gruffs” can be used by both dominant ones  as well as subordinates “in order to elicit positive conditioned responses”.  A dominant primate produces these vocalizations to let the subordinate know that there is no need to be afraid because he or she only wants grooming. The subordinate one “should pair such calls with grooming or other positive outcomes when interacting with a dominant, thereby being able to elicit positive conditioned responses in that individual on other occasions.” 

July 19, 2015

July 19, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

 

This is the twelfth writing which includes findings that were reported by the animal researchers Owren and Rendall in their paper “An affect conditioning model of nonhuman primate vocal signaling” (1997). 

Currently, I read more than I write. I find the research on primates by Owren and Rendall, who have produced many papers together, very interesting as it relates to the phylogenetic origins of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). 

Before I go back to reviewing their paper, I want to let the reader know I am sitting in a coffee shop downtown. I just saw a homeless person walking by. He was gesturing wildly and raising his voice to attract attention and pity from the people who were sitting outside on the patio. They gave him some money. When he was about to cross the street and had to wait for the traffic light, he pulled out a cell phone from his pocket, looked at it intently, texted and then put it back. It surprised me that a guy like that would still have an I-Phone. Although he was dressed in dirty clothes, he suddenly seemed like a normal person waiting for the traffic light to turn green. 

This homeless person is a good illustration of what these primate researchers found: subordinate primates produce noxious vocalizations, such as screams and shrieks, to influence dominant one’s in order to deflect attacks. The ‘attack’ this disheveled guy, who probably is schizophrenic, wards off with his loud symptoms, is that people judge him and stigmatize him as mentally ill. The dominant, normal ones respond to his noxious behavior, by giving him some dollars. They get rid of him while still feeling good about themselves, probably a little less guilty as they have supposedly helped him. Nobody seems to realize that these presumably generous, positive behaviors and these disturbing, strange behaviors are related. 

One would have to know about primate vocalizations to be able to make such an analysis. To diagnose a person as a schizophrenic is to obfuscate the environment with which such a person interacts and to remain oblivious about how this environment creates and maintains his odd behavior. 

Something else really struck me. Before the person had crossed the street, he did a little act, as if he was acting for everyone to see that he was crazy. He talked at the sky and waved his arms at the cars that were passing by. Having probably more than only my attention, he then started rummaging through a garbage can. He reached in there, picked out a plastic cup, held it in front of his face and showed how disgusted he was by this item and threw it back. Then he demonstratively shrugged his shoulders, as if saying, “I can’t eat or drink this crap” and walked away seemingly angered. 

Research on primate vocalizations suggests that “callers use vocalizations to elicit affective responses in others, thereby altering behavior of these individuals.” Interestingly, the guy didn’t talk a word with those people who gave him some money. He didn't need to and so he acted non-verbally. 

In working with people with mental disorder it has occurred to me many times that they mainly act non-verbally. Sadly, this is how they get their needs met. Most mental health clients have yet to become speakers, but as long as they are able to use their vocalizations to get what they need, their behavior is not going to change. Similarly, when parents of autistic children keep reading into their children’s nonverbal behavior what they want, they are not stimulating them to become verbal and thus they actually increase and maintain their children’s autistic behaviors. 

“Responses can either be unconditioned, being produced directly by the signal itself, or conditioned, resulting from past interactions in which the sender both called and produced affective responses in the receiver through other means.” 

From the successful behavior of the presumably schizophrenic man it is apparent that he primarily relied on the unconditioned responses that were “produced by the signal itself.” As a subordinate sender, he had “little power over a given receiver” and he “also had little opportunity to use [his] calls as predictors of negative affective responses.” In other words, he was actually well-behaved, in that he didn’t threaten the people with his antics. 

On the other hand, he was able to influence them with his vocal nonverbal behavior precisely in such a way as to elicit their pity. Perhaps, both the givers of money as well as the homeless person had a Catholic back ground, due to which he was able to exploit their guilt feelings. If that was the case, he was capitalizing on a conditioned response.  It is also possible that the givers of money were culturally conditioned to give money to the poor and it is likely that the homeless man was aware of it and skillfully played into this with his Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). As this example clearly demonstrates, direct and indirect effects can occur together. 

Vocalizations such as “squeaks, shrieks and screams” with which nonhuman primates elicit unconditioned effects in the receiver map beautifully onto NVB.  To be effective, unpleasant sounds “should occur in acoustically variable streams – thereby maximizing unconditioned affective responses in the receiver while minimizing habituation effects.” A new account emerges of the positive symptoms and treatment of this schizophrenic man, who was not talking with real people, but only with unseen others. 

The variability in symptoms is always a combined function of ontogenetic, phylogenetic and cultural contingencies. I have worked in psychiatric hospitals where people were hospitalized because they were a danger to themselves or others. When I told people that I was teaching them to listen to themselves while they speak, they instantly felt it and we had remarkably normal conversations because I facilitated SVB. All I did was to shift their attention from NVB to SVB. I simply explained that when we sound good, we feel good and we don’t need to try to feel good. I let them listen to my sound. They recognized that my sound was making them feel good and consequently they began to sound and feel good too.