↓ Skip to main content

Functional flexibility in wild bonobo vocal behaviour

Overview of attention for article published in PeerJ, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
33 news outlets
blogs
8 blogs
twitter
28 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
googleplus
4 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
158 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Functional flexibility in wild bonobo vocal behaviour
Published in
PeerJ, August 2015
DOI 10.7717/peerj.1124
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zanna Clay, Jahmaira Archbold, Klaus Zuberbühler

Abstract

A shared principle in the evolution of language and the development of speech is the emergence of functional flexibility, the capacity of vocal signals to express a range of emotional states independently of context and biological function. Functional flexibility has recently been demonstrated in the vocalisations of pre-linguistic human infants, which has been contrasted to the functionally fixed vocal behaviour of non-human primates. Here, we revisited the presumed chasm in functional flexibility between human and non-human primate vocal behaviour, with a study on our closest living primate relatives, the bonobo (Pan paniscus). We found that wild bonobos use a specific call type (the "peep") across a range of contexts that cover the full valence range (positive-neutral-negative) in much of their daily activities, including feeding, travel, rest, aggression, alarm, nesting and grooming. Peeps were produced in functionally flexible ways in some contexts, but not others. Crucially, calls did not vary acoustically between neutral and positive contexts, suggesting that recipients take pragmatic information into account to make inferences about call meaning. In comparison, peeps during negative contexts were acoustically distinct. Our data suggest that the capacity for functional flexibility has evolutionary roots that predate the evolution of human speech. We interpret this evidence as an example of an evolutionary early transition away from fixed vocal signalling towards functional flexibility.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 3%
Germany 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Unknown 148 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 20%
Researcher 28 18%
Student > Bachelor 23 15%
Student > Master 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 29 18%
Unknown 23 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 51 32%
Psychology 30 19%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Linguistics 6 4%
Neuroscience 5 3%
Other 25 16%
Unknown 34 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 335. 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 07 March 2021.
All research outputs
#95,329
of 24,833,726 outputs
Outputs from PeerJ
#117
of 14,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#949
of 269,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PeerJ
#1
of 229 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,833,726 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,799 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
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 269,782 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 229 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.