↓ Skip to main content

Neural systems for vocal learning in birds and humans: a synopsis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Ornithology, November 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
89 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
208 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Neural systems for vocal learning in birds and humans: a synopsis
Published in
Journal of Ornithology, November 2007
DOI 10.1007/s10336-007-0243-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erich D. Jarvis

Abstract

I present here a synopsis on a hypothesis that I derived on the similarities and differences of vocal learning systems in vocal learning birds for learned song and in humans for spoken language. This hypothesis states that vocal learning birds-songbirds, parrots, and hummingbirds-and humans have comparable specialized forebrain regions that are not found in their close vocal non-learning relatives. In vocal learning birds, these forebrain regions appear to be divided into two sub-pathways, a vocal motor pathway mainly used to produce learned vocalizations and a pallial-basal-ganglia-thalamic loop mainly used to learn and modify the vocalizations. I propose that humans have analogous forebrain pathways within and adjacent to the motor and pre-motor cortices, respectively, used to produce and learn speech. Recent advances have supported the existence of the seven cerebral vocal nuclei in the vocal learning birds and the proposed brain regions in humans. The results in birds suggest that the reason why the forebrain regions are similar across distantly related vocal learners is that the vocal pathways may have evolved out of a pre-existing motor pathway that predates the ancient split from the common ancestor of birds and mammals. Although this hypothesis will require the development of novel technologies to be fully tested, the existing evidence suggest that there are strong genetic constraints on how vocal learning neural systems can evolve.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 208 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 1%
Austria 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 197 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 56 27%
Researcher 35 17%
Student > Master 35 17%
Student > Bachelor 16 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 13 6%
Other 31 15%
Unknown 22 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 85 41%
Neuroscience 27 13%
Psychology 26 13%
Linguistics 8 4%
Computer Science 4 2%
Other 27 13%
Unknown 31 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 June 2014.
All research outputs
#7,788,085
of 23,653,937 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ornithology
#718
of 1,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,721
of 79,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ornithology
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,653,937 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,666 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 79,084 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.