1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Sources of acoustic variation: Implications for production specificity and call categorization in chacma baboon (Papio ursinus) grunts
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1121/1.3531944
/content/asa/journal/jasa/129/3/10.1121/1.3531944
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/129/3/10.1121/1.3531944

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Means and standard errors are shown for the acoustic parameters that differentiated grunts in one context from those given in the other three. For the infant-handling context: (a) pf max location (0 = beginning of the call, 1 = end of the call) and (b) the grunt duration. For the foraging context: (c) dfb1 mean and (d) dfa1 mean. Significant differences are marked with asterisks (* = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01).

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Results of the LMM conducted for the mean harmonic-to-noise ratio (mean hnr, ranging from 0 to 1) across contexts (means and standard errors): (a) for all animals, (b)–(d) for three different individuals. The mean hnr is used as an illustrative example; similar results are obtained for other acoustic parameters. Significant differences are marked with asterisks (* = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01).

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Patterns of variation in (a) the mean interval durations and (b) the percentage of single grunts, across contexts (means and standard errors). Infant-handling grunts are mainly uttered in rapid succession whereas foraging grunts typically occur singly.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Differences in acoustic parameters across the different inferred states of arousal on our three-point scale (means and standard errors). The frequencies of the second formant and the mean frequency range are shown here as examples. Significant differences are marked with asterisks (* = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01).

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

Definitions of the different contexts used for acoustic analysis. Further differentiations have been made between directed grunts (receiver) and undirected grunts (no receiver) in two of these contexts.

Generic image for table
TABLE II.

An overview of the calls analyzed by caller and context in the various analyses. The number of calls, and the number of bouts they derive from (in parentheses), are given by individual and context. The mean number of calls (± standard error) used for each individual and context are also given for each of the three analysis.

Generic image for table
TABLE III.

Definitions of the different contexts used for acoustic analysis. Further differentiations have been made between directed grunts (receiver) and undirected grunts (no receiver) in two of these contexts.

Generic image for table
TABLE IV.

Classification results and error reduction of the DFA (in %) conducted for (1) the four defined contexts, (2) the “infant-handling” and “move” contexts alone, (3) caller ID, and (4) arousal. The classification results of Owren et al. (1997) are also presented for comparison.

Generic image for table
TABLE V.

The percentage of correct classifications (in bold) and the error reduction values of the grunts in the four contexts assessed (from the DFA carried out across all individuals). The corresponding mean error reductions from the eight DFAs calculated separately for each individual are also given.

Generic image for table
TABLE VI.

Analyses of the effects of context on each acoustic parameter using LMMs, first without and then with the arousal scale as a random factor. The differences between contexts were statistically significant (p-values) for most acoustic parameters even after controlling for both arousal and multiple testing.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/asa/journal/jasa/129/3/10.1121/1.3531944
2011-03-09
2014-04-24
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Sources of acoustic variation: Implications for production specificity and call categorization in chacma baboon (Papio ursinus) grunts
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/129/3/10.1121/1.3531944
10.1121/1.3531944
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM