Bird Brains Explain How Humans Learn to Talk 200
eaglebtc writes "A team of neuroscientists at MIT have made tremendous progress in understanding how birds learn to sing: a part of the brain called the basal ganglia is primarily responsible for controlling the learning of movement and the production of speech. This circuitry is also present in humans, and it is the same way that a baby's random babbling eventually becomes the proficient speech of adults. It is hoped that this research can provide further insights into Parkinson's Disease, an inherited genetic condition that causes rapid breakdown of motor control and speech production. The full research study is available as a downloadable PDF."
But does this explain... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But does this explain... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:But does this explain... (Score:5, Funny)
Based on my observation, I can only conclude it's bird slang for shit. More specifically "shit here".
Re:But does this explain... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:But does this explain... (Score:3, Interesting)
My other parrot just mutters, I'm not sure
Re:But does this explain... (Score:2)
Re:But does this explain... (Score:2)
Re:But does this explain... (Score:4, Interesting)
On another note, what struck me as odd is that when a cockatiel learns new sounds, it's almost as if these "overwrite" certain reflexive noises. As a baby, the 'tiel would shriek or squawk when startled. As an adult, she will now make a particular learned sound, over and over and over, when she's startled or spooked. When she's hungry, she'll imitate the dryer buzzer. Essentially all of her "built-in" sounds have been replaced by learned ones.
Re:But does this explain... (Score:3, Interesting)
After the dog was frothing at the mouth, barking hysterically, and slamming into the back screen door, the bird would calmly walk away and hide under the nearest table while my aunt (upon hearing a
Re:But does this explain... (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe, but it might also explain how that smartass Owl can tell us how many licks it takes to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop.
Re:But does this explain... (Score:3, Interesting)
These are sufficienly curious and smart that they are capable of opening a zipped up bag, pulling out a lunch box, opening that lunchbox and eating what it finds inside.
That's a non-trivial achievement. I've known people that couldn't get that far.
Re:But does this explain... (Score:2)
So if he went straight for the lunch, he either saw this bad being packed, or deduced a plan of action from seeing other similar situations.
Re:But does this explain... (Score:2)
These are sufficienly curious and smart that they are capable of opening a zipped up bag, pulling out a lunch box, opening that lunchbox and eating what it finds inside.
Yeah, but Yogi Bear had this beat HANDS DOWN!
On a more serious note, I was watching some PBS or Discovery special on the Kea. They developed all sorts of puzzles. One was a big tube with all kinds of pegs and levers that the bird had to figure out to get food to
Re:But does this explain... (Score:3, Interesting)
No idea if you were being serious. The family Mimidae (Mockingbirds, Thrasher, etc.) and others copy wild song into their own songs.
Re:baby as Mockingbird (Score:2)
Hrm (Score:2)
Re:Hrm (Score:2)
If bird brains explain how humans talk, then... (Score:1, Funny)
Brainz (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Brainz (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Brainz (Score:5, Funny)
*ducks*
Re:Brainz (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Brainz (Score:2, Funny)
Quick, get me a corticle stimulator (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Quick, get me a corticle stimulator (Score:3, Funny)
Proficient speech? (Score:5, Funny)
Proficient speech? Have you heard the way people talk? Sometimes I'm surprised they can dress themselves in the morning.
Re:Proficient speech? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Proficient speech? (Score:2)
Flying / running into closed windows.
*thump*
Valid hypothesis (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Valid hypothesis (Score:1)
we need brain (Score:3, Funny)
Birds and Humans (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Birds and Humans (Score:5, Interesting)
In the philosophy paper I'm writing, I go on a bit about communication as a source of knowledge being the ability to recognize certain observations as being indicative as originating from other like entities, i.e. when I hear certain sounds, that indicates not just something about my environment, but about another being like myself.
This applies pretty clearly not only to sound-making (speech) and hearing, but also to other forms of behavior (see sign language in humans for a pretty incontroversial example of non-spoken communication behavior). The reason I find this 'motor control' / 'speech ability' link interesting is that motor control indicates that it's not the systems responsible for causing movement, but he systems responsible for controlling movement, for selecting specific actions for specific reasons.
It seems to me that this biological link between communication abilities and a sort of 'willed' (controlled) action makes perfect sense; on the one hand it's responsible for putting meaning into things the individual is doing, instead of a blind stimulus-response, and on the other hand it's responsible for assigning meaning to what other individuals do.
In a sense, it seems to be somewhat responsible for any type of 'social' thought and action at all, both for understanding that when I do this, I mean that, and that when I see this, it means that; as opposed to making observations of the world and reacting to them without any meaning associated. This is not limited only to vocalization but to any type of behavior which may by association convey information to another; dog marking their terrirory is communication by scent, sign language and writing is communication by sign, all sorts of noise-making is communication by sound...
From a simple beginning like this it's possible to see how more advanced social mechanisms could build. Once the individual has begun to recognize on some level that other things it sees and hears are not just a part of its environment but other beings like itself, possible with useful information: from there you can begin to develop empathy and sympathy and whole forms of social interaction not often seen outside of mammalian and avian species. Which makes perfect sense, if this neural feature is found in common between both humans and birds.
Re:Birds and Humans (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Birds and Humans (Score:4, Interesting)
Independent development, I would think. The main article here is wrong. The same circuitry is NOT present in humans. As the original article says, the circuitry has a 'human counterpart' - most likely independently evolved.
Mirror (Score:5, Informative)
That's not what we need (Score:2, Funny)
Re:That's not what we need (Score:1)
Re:That's not what we need (Score:2, Funny)
parkinsons isn't very inherited. (Score:5, Informative)
Parkinson's Disease, an inherited genetic condition
While there's some genetic risk factors, it's not know what causes parkinsons disease. According to wikipedia having a parent with Parkinsons increases your lifetime risk of getting it from 2% to 6%.
Re:parkinsons isn't very inherited. (Score:5, Informative)
badly brewed methamphetamines will have a high percentage of MPTP which will cause severe damage to the substantia nigra leading to Parkinson's like symptoms even in young people. It was in fact a bad batch of MPTP causing these parkinsonian tremors and symptoms in a group of 20 year old drug abusers that led to some scientific studies and discoveries and the creation of a primate model of parkinsons by injecting MPTP into primates.
Vasular: a stroke or microinfarct to the basal ganglia or substantia nigra can cause parkinson's like symptoms.
Toxic: I read about the insect poison thing too, but don't remember any key details or whether it has any MPTP like properties.
Parkinson's has also been treated in the past with Fetal Cell tranplants directly into the substantia nigra and into the globus pallidus.
It has also been treated by implanting electronic stimulating electrodes into the thalamus, more specifically into the VIM nucleus, in an attempt to disrupt the rhythmic tremors of Parkinson's. Very cool stuff.
Chomsky (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Chomsky (Score:2)
Re:Chomsky (Score:4, Informative)
Chomsky put forth the following for how children learn language: it is a simple statistical fact that there are entire kinds of sentences that you understand and produce correctly that you are likely have to never heard before -- like English "Is the woman who is walking her dog Tom's neighbour?" where you are asking a question but there are two mini sentences, one about the woman walking her dog, and one about her being Tom's neighbor.
So you couldn't possibly be learning how to speak English (and not speak non-English) just by observing how often things occur -- because you wind up understanding that perfectly even though it just doesn't come up.
Both the claim that this really is a 'simple statistical fact' and the claim that you couldn't learn they are okay just by observing the statistical pattern have been HOTLY debated. But that is Chomsky's claim.
Something is missing, the argument goes, and that missing chunk must be mechanisms in the brain specifically dedicated to language. This too has been hotly debated, but it is both Chomsky's and Pinker's position (less so Pinker).
TFA bears on this issue in a tangential way. It's known that there's a circuit in bird brains that is required for them to learn their songs properly ('anterior forebrain pathway'). This research sheds some light on why it is required. The way I understand it (IANA neuroscientist), it is a keep-on-trucking circuit that says, 'okay, do it again. and again. and again.' Something like this mechanism is also found in humans, in the basal ganglia, so now we have maybe learned something about us.
However, many people on Chomsky's side are very suspicious of any 'generic' learning mechanisms like trial-and-error. For example, the article mentions babies' repeated babbling as a mechanism of trial-and-error to get the sounds of a language right very early on. But a potential alternate 'language-is-totally-innate' -- Chomsky/Pinker -- explanation might be that babbling does not feed back on itself, and a baby doesn't learn anything from it; rather, the baby's 'language faculty' has not matured (which happens with minimal help from what the baby hears) to the point where it can do anything else. I made this up - this is not a theory about babbling that can be found in the literature -- but it is the kind of alternative to 'general intelligence' that is often proposed.
The parent-linked article is about a book which vehemently denies Chomsky/Pinker's point of view. (FWIW I've read some of the author's other works and I think he's just a troll.)
Re:Chomsky (Score:2)
Re:Chomsky (Score:2)
Chomsky either has changed his view on this or has one widely misunderstood view on it, I am not sure which. On the one hand, he has always started with the notion that
Re:Chomsky (Score:4, Interesting)
It's important to note the difference between the acquisition of *language* and the acquisition of *speech*. Congentially deaf persons are capable of acquiring the former quite naturally, in the form of Sign, which is a language (or rather, are languages) entirely of it's own. (Signed English, etc. are "hacks" in the perjorative sense -- a congenitally deaf person does not "think" in Signed English, but in some other symbolic language [ASL generally]).
Babies are capable of learning symbolic languages long before they are capable of learning speech. The two are distinct categories of development -- So, really, this doesn't "go as deep" as Chomsky's work, which concerns language development in general, and not speech in particular.
[I'm a bit drunk right now, so I'm AC.}
And since I'm AC, I'll go ahead and say that I think Chomsky is a fucking choad for his non-linguistics "work", which consists of getting insanely rich by writing books critical of every political view but his version of anarcho-syndicalism. -- but feel free do mod me independently of this viewpoint.
Re:Chomsky (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, so you're saying that its bad in itself that he favors one politcal theory over others? I mean, don't lots of people do this? And just for clarity, I think it'd be best to describe his political philosophy as a form of libertarian-socialism. Anarcho-syndicalism would be a form of voluntary organization that he says works well in a truly libertarian political state.
I don't know how rich he gets off of his books, and I wonder how you found this information.
Re:Chomsky (Score:2)
Well Heil Hitler to you too!
If you wish to argue his points, fine, but this is so far off the charts I had to respond. Calling Chomsky a choad bares your ignorance concerning his "non-linguistics" work. He states over and over and over, that he is not trying to persuade anyone. He states this incessantly.
And I quote: "You shouldn't believe what I say is true. Nobody is going to pour truth into your brain. It's something you have t
Re:Chomsky (Score:2)
Well, sounds like he persuaded you that he's not trying to persuade anyone...
Re:Chomsky (Score:2)
It's called the installment of critical thought. Believe it or not (and you may not), critcal thought is a good thing.
Re:Chomsky (Score:2)
Actually, repeatedly telling someone to think for themselves instead of listening to them, but then detailing political views rather than explaining (say) Socratic questioning is more like reverse psychology (though in Chomsky's case, I'd have to give him the benefit of the doubt and say this is probably not the intent). Te
Re:Chomsky (Score:4, Interesting)
Chomsky also puts a lot of his work online for free for someone motivated by profit.
http://www.chomsky.info/
http://www.zma
(An intresting side note: Noam Chomsky has copyrighed his more recent writting, not to himself, but to his family. Perhaps he is in worse health then he has publicaly disclosed.)
NC has a lot of important things to say and we shouldn't dismiss it out of hand because it contradicts the more conservative popular voices. Radicals should also not take his word as the gospel truth and only use it as a starting point for their own inquiry into more primary sources.
HAH! (Score:2)
but see we find out what you couldn't!
look who dummys now!
HA HA!!
Yes, but (Score:4, Funny)
Does it also explain why that said adults immediately regress back to random babbling the minute they're confronted with a keyboard and a net connection?
Re:Yes, but (Score:2)
Geeks avoid this through bad posture and stimulants such as caffeine to stimulate blood flow.
-Jay
ba??? (Score:1, Funny)
bababe baboo baeeeee bteeeink ya ma gegetting a hang of it!!!
Parrot species... (Score:5, Interesting)
The parrot and cockatoo species of birds offer some amazing insight into the likely evolution of intelligence and social interaction outside the human/mammal pathway.
To start with, birds in general have their origins traced back to dinosaur-era reptiles. That's a pretty huge developmental shift between humanity and bird.
Yet, many species of birds can not only learn to speak human words, but they can learn context and how to use those words to manipulate people and other creatures. The birds in my parents pet store have learned more than just how to act in order to get treats, but how to manipulate people and other animals for seemingly the sheer pleasures and social interaction of it. It's hard to think of such use of intelligence as a base condition of animals that were ancestors of both mammals and dinosaurs - it seems more likely that intelligence itself is an independantly developed extension of logic.
As a smaller-scale example, Cockatoos are a more ancient species of bird than modern parrots. They also develop intelligence of many sorts, though of a more social nature. They can learn to speak words and immitate, but use the manipulation of those words on a more purely social level than parrots. It's somewhat amazing that such a mobile and diverse set of species as birds can each acquire different uses for language and intelligence - perhaps if it weren't for the necissary limitations of flight (weight, head-body aspect ratio), the intelligent species of our planet would have been birds, not mammals.
This is no hard evidence, but it also seems to make the possibility of intelligent life outside our known observed environments seem less unlikely too - especially if it can develop in so seemingly independant circumstances, despite a somewhat shared environment.
Ryan Fenton
Re:Parrot species... (Score:2)
Not only bird species (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, most species have evolved some kinds of intelligence, far beyond what many humans credit them with. IMHO the parrots are a more interesting case because they can actually articulate human words, but I wouldn't discount the intelligence of animals who lack a suitable larynx for that. Everything you describe, except for actually articulating words, can be observed in at least half the mammal species I can think of.
In some cases it's not even just learning by imitation.
E.g., cats not only can learn, but are actively taught by their mother. If you've ever had a cat with kittens, you've probably noticed how she talks to them for hours. (And likely got annoyed when she does it at 4 AM.)
And if you take a kitten from his/her mom very early, he/she'll grow up to be a bit of a retarded cat. So all that meowing at night wasn't just socializing.
This isn't necessarily to say "cats are smart", but rather that most species evolved towards some kind of "smart". Natural selection favours adaptability, and adapting by learning is the most efficient kind.
Sharing information with other members of the species, i.e. _some_ form of speech (even if it means meowing, barking or chirping) was also a very immediate survival advantage. E.g., for most species of animals it's a very real advantage to be able to tell your cubs "hide!" or "come here, I brought you dinner" and the like.
In the cats' case, it's obviously a language that can transmit behaviour information to the kitten. Probably not as complex or as capable of abstraction as human language, but complex enough to tell that kitten how to act in certain circumstances, or what its priorities should be. (E.g., "wash yourself often". Cats taken very early from their mother do it less often than ones who got taught.) I.e., it might be more complex than a parrot's learning to say "hi" and "goodbye".
So basically, yeah, I'd guess that life anywhere, in any conditions, would probably tend to evolve towards some kind of intelligence and communication capabilities.
Re:Parrot species... (Score:4, Insightful)
- For viable species, selection favours those most efficient at doing what they do, which is unlikely to favour innovation except in times of stress [meme.com.au].
- While there are well known examples of convergent evolution, there are a lot more examples of the loss of ancestral function in descendant clades.
- Of the millions of species descended from the last common ancestor [tolweb.org] (LCA) of birds and mammals, homo sapiens sapiens is but one and thus clearly atypical.*
While behaviour does not fossilise well, it is conceivable that the LCA learnt some behaviours by imitating its parents, though a comparable level of active nurturing evolved independently in eusocial insects. Early developmental pathways tend to be much more strongly conserved than other characteristics over evolutionary time.I was unable to identify any qualitative difference between the lunchtime chatter in the cafeteria at my alma mater and the chatter of a flock of corellas roosting in red gums by the Wimmera River at Dimboola.We also keep forgetting that orcas and elephants have very strong claims to being the other most intelligent mammals, but their bodily size and consequent food consumption has made it impossible for them to form populations on the scale needed to support our kind of culture. The cockatoos might well be a better model, particularly if we concede that evolution may have been more concerned with improving brain function per gram in flying critters.It may be relevant that "singing" appears to be one of the commoner examples of convergent evolution. I guess I've put off writing my "singing ape hypothesis" far too long already.
*This may also be taken as evidence that "intelligence" is overrated.
Re:Parrot species... (Score:2)
Eh? It'll happen eventually. Ever hear of the Shoe event horizon?
Hmmm (Score:1)
Grammar (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact there is even a mathematical proof that seems to indicate that human languages should be technically unlearn-able (google: EM Gold language grammar - "Language identification in the limit"). IIRC - the synopsis being that, human languages are at least as sophisticated as context free languages (and can to some degree be modeled by context free languages) and the grammar of context free languages should not be learnable from the sort of linguistic input available to a child.
So...anyhow, I'm not so sure if studying how birds learn a sequence of sounds really gets at the more interesting aspects of human language acquisition. I mean it's probably interesting in terms of how animals, and even people, learn to produce simple sequences of sounds.
But, for human language? Or, at least for the interesting, i.e. uniquely human, parts of it? For that you probably need to either study people, or possibly very similar animals like other primates.
Re:Grammar (Score:3, Interesting)
To take one example, try saying the words "cats" and "dogs" - notice that the "s" at the end of "dogs" sounds more like a 'z'. Is that because of a motor program, which tells the
Re:Grammar (Score:2)
Though they're not as much fun to dissect.
To clarify anyone reading the parent comment;
in cats, the t is non-vocalized. You can have your vocal cords removed and still make the 't' sound.
IN dogs, the g is vocalized. You need vocal cords to make the g sound. If a word ends in a vocalized consonant, the 's' will also be vocalized. A nonvocalized consonant will get a non vocalized 's.'
Thus;
Dogz
Cats
Rats
Bugz
Firez
Laffs
Coffs
He l p
Re:Grammar (Score:2)
Re:Grammar (Score:2)
Gold's proof shows that
Re:Grammar (Score:2)
Specifically, Gold's theorem is about 'learnability in the limit', in other words, precise learning of the exact set of strings that make up the language that the learner is exposed to.
What does that mean?
Oh sure! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Oh sure! (Score:4, Interesting)
(Check out Dr. Alexander Z. Guiora [umich.edu]'s work on "The Effects of Experimentally Induced Change in Ego States on Pronunciation Ability in a Second Language." (and a few more studies in Language Learning) He and his colleagues, back in the '70s, examined the way impaired subjects (drunk, hypnotized, under the influence of valium...) pronounced foreign languages they knew. Interestingly enough, these subjects had better pronunciation when drunk etc. than sober! So it's all about making yourself interesting to someone and having their grants pay for the fun...)
Re:Oh sure! (Score:2)
Re:Oh sure! (Score:2)
Re:Oh sure! (Score:2)
A insightful comment that, maybe (Score:2)
I would not be surprised if "practising" like this while drunk would actually have a better training effect than normal movement/training.
There'd probably be some negative learning effect too, maybe some loss of flexibility.
Hey... (Score:2, Funny)
Pentacostals (Score:3, Interesting)
Disclaimer: Even if we find a neurobiological basis for this religious phenomenon, it will neither confirm nor deny God is involved. Faith will merely assert that that deity is using this mechanism. I'm not Pentacostal, but I don't think speaking in tongues is "of the devil," either.
Re:Pentacostals (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Pentacostals (Score:2)
My observations (Score:4, Interesting)
From what I've seen, he has learned many phrases and words over the years, and is able to successfully use them in correct conversational context. For example, if you insult him, he will reply with a stinging "Cat!" He also asks "what's that?" when he sees a new item in a room, and laughs at jokes in movies.
What relates to this article, however, is his habit of creating random vocalizations. Often he will speak in a chaotic combination of "human-like" noises and settle on a couple that pique his fancy. A few days ago he was angry with me and started his mumblings while on my girlfriend's shoulder. He leaned closer to her ear and after a couple seconds he said something that closely resembled "Bosco bites people, Bosco bites people, Bosco bites (my name)." It was quite eerie.
My other random though was the possible connections this has to creativity. Is this the section of the brain that humans use while composing random, new music? What about scat singers who sing random combinations of sounds?
Birds are not "bird brained" (Score:5, Interesting)
I would put their overall intelligence at around the 4 or 5 year human. With the addition that they are the most expert lock pickers.
Imagine if you will the tantrums of a 4/5 year old, add that the 4/5 year can fly, has a set of tools like a combination hammer, ice-pick, file, and nut cracker, and absolutely knows which items dotted about are the most valuable to destroy.
Often one of them imitates the phone ringing as I am about to leave the house. I could swear the blessed things are all sharing the joke.
I am often left pondering: who here is the pet?
Re:Birds are not "bird brained" (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure my chickens are bigger than your cockatoos.
But they aren't all that smart.
But they DO produce breakfast!
Re:Birds are not "bird brained" (Score:2)
Re:My observations (Score:2)
Can anyone tell me the origin of this term? Is it just cos the shit comes pouring out or something?
Creationists... (Score:2, Funny)
Bird brain and human speech? (Score:2, Interesting)
Parkinson's Not Rapid (Score:4, Informative)
It is not an inherited genetic condition. There may be genetic factors. Nor does it cause rapid breakdown. The disease is a slow breakdown over many years. And a person can have a normal lifespan. It is treatable. My grandfather had Parkinson's. He lived to be 90. He had a shuffle walk and didn't have serious tremors like other sufferers.
Actually... (Score:2)
It Certainly Does (Score:2)
"a baby's random babbling eventually becomes the proficient speech of adults"
Especially on
Leaving out the word "proficient", of course.
Blurb makes pretty big leaps (Score:2)
Re:FP (Score:4, Funny)
and here folks, we can see that this circuitry can also be reactivated in "adults", when the baby babbling comes back in grown-ups under certain conditions, such as posting on Slashdot.
However, under these circumstances, it tends to become a mass-babbling, where several adults mumble the same things over and over, such as "forsty piss", "gnaa", "soviet russia," or "yoda doll".
An interesting subject for pedopsychiatrists to be sure...
Re:FP (Score:2)
So the singing of birds is like talk radio?
Re:FP (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Funny)
And I bet 50 quatloons they glow different colours.
Re:old news (Score:2)
Re:2 years later... (Score:2, Informative)
It's funny, laugh. (Score:2)
The scientists doing the study explain in their paper how humans learn to talk. The poster is referring to the headline of the story "Bird Brains Explain How Humans Learn to Talk". As in The Scientists == Bird Brains. Ha, ha? Funny?
I guess there are some dumb fouls moderating too....
Re:Ah ha... a break through in speach paterns! (Score:2, Offtopic)
Too many brain dead republicans with moderation points on slashdot...
Damn it.
Re:Ah ha... a break through in speach paterns! (Score:2)
I have the same thing with brain dead Microsofties. I'll get modded to Troll if I bash them. As for Bush some suspect he is actually a Pakled [memory-alpha.org] as seen on ST:TNG. They have poor verbal skills and thus appear challenged, but are dangerous and warlike.
Pakled: We look for things.
Riker: What kind of things?
Paklend: Things that make us go.
Riker: I see.
Re:Talking animals (Score:2)
Or at least they could read 2000AD