Common marmosets ( Callithrix jacchus ) do not differentiate between familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics based on pitch contour information

bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)

Abstract

Abstract Previous studies suggest that vocal-learning species use variations of prosodic cues, such as changes in pitch, amplitude, or duration, in the conveying of meaning and emotions as well as individual recognition. Although it is known that the long-distance contact calls (“phee” calls) of common marmosets, a vocal non-learner, vary in prosodic information depending on individual characteristics, evidence of the species’ use of this information only recently started to emerge. In this study we tested 18 captive common marmosets’ ( Callithrix jacchus ) reactions to playbacks of familiar and unfamiliar individuals’ phee calls and extracted pitch-contour information. The playbacks consisted of i) natural phee calls from group members or unfamiliar conspecifics, or ii) synthesized pitch contours of familiar or unfamiliar phee calls following a natural or artificial syllable order as well as pure tones of similar frequency and duration. We found that although individuals seemed to show different reactions towards the natural calls of familiar and unfamiliar individuals’, we did not find group level differences. Marmosets furthermore show significantly reduced interest in synthesized pitch contours compared to natural phee calls and did not differentiate between pitch contour playbacks and pure tone control stimuli, indicating that they did not categorize the pitch contours as conspecific calls. Our results suggest that extracted pitch contour information alone is not sufficient for marmosets to recognise conspecifics, however further studies are required to investigate the exact mechanism of individual recognition in marmosets.

Authors 8

1. Julia Victoria Grabner corresponding

   University of Vienna

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Behavioral and Cognitive Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

2. Emma Pigmans Aachen Animal Sciences Institute of Biology, Leiden University

   Leiden University

   Affiliation as printed

   Animal Sciences, Institute of Biology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

3. Monika Mircheva

   University of Zurich

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

4. Job Morgan Knoester

   University of Vienna

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Behavioral and Cognitive Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

5. Robert Baumgartner

   Austrian Academy of Sciences · Acoustics Research Institute

   Affiliation as printed

   Acoustics Research Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria

6. Ulrich Pomper

   University of Vienna

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Cognition, Emotion and Methods in Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Austria

7. Thomas Bugnyar

   University of Vienna

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Behavioral and Cognitive Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

8. Michelle J. Spierings Aachen Animal Sciences Institute of Biology, Leiden University

   Leiden University · University of Vienna

   Affiliation as printed

   Animal Sciences, Institute of Biology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

   Department of Behavioral and Cognitive Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria