Showing posts with label musical animals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label musical animals. Show all posts

Monday, May 19, 2025

Music in our genes?

© ILLC Blog, Illustration by Marianne de Heer Kloots


 

 
"In 1984, a curious study on musicality in animals was published. The researchers from Portland, Oregon trained pigeons to distinguish two pieces of music – one by Bach, the other by Stravinsky. If the birds got it right, they were rewarded with food. Afterwards, the same pigeons were exposed to new pieces of music from the same composers. Surprisingly, they were still able to determine which piece was composed by which composer.

This finding confronted researchers with a new set of questions. To what extent are animals musical? What does it even mean for an animal to be musical? And what can this teach us about musicality in humans?" 

(From Music in our genes, ILLC Blog).

The interview is based on an episode of the podcast “Talk that Science” – an initiative started by students from the University of Amsterdam.

• Listen to the episode here (in Dutch);
• Link to the English transcript can be found here.

Sunday, September 29, 2024

Musical Animals: Are We? Can There Be?

Lecture at Barenboim-Said Akademie in 2016.
Roughly ten years ago, I had the honor of being invited by the Barenboim-Said Akademie to deliver a public lecture in Berlin, Germany. The event, entitled Was Musik kann (What Music Can Do), celebrated the impact of music and musicianship on our lives. In my presentation I started with a listening experiment, in a playful attempt to challenge the audience. 

I invited the attendees—many of whom were professional musicians and distinguished educators at the Barenboim-Said Academy—to envision themselves as expert judges on a conservatory selection committee. They were asked to assess the musicianship of an ensemble based solely on a brief excerpt of a live recording I played for them. Emulating the traditional audition process, where candidates perform behind a curtain to ensure impartiality, I asked the audience to make their judgments based solely on what they heard. 

The audience's reaction was split; some were enthusiastic, while others were unimpressed. When asked for their thoughts, the positive responders praised the performance as experimental yet well-executed, whereas the negative ones criticized the timing as sloppy and the music as lacking melody. However, their opinions shifted dramatically after viewing a original video of the musicians: a group of Thai elephants, led by a human conductor, that were playing an array of percussion instruments and a mouth harmonica (see video registration). 

This example is not just amusing; it also highlights some pitfalls in the study of the biology of music. Although I influenced the audience by framing the test as an audition, their varied reactions reveal more about human perception than about the elephants’ musical abilities. This raises a fundamental question: what must an organism—whether human, elephant, or bird—perceive to experience something as music? For instance, while the songs of an Amazonian songbird may sound musical to us, this perception reflects our own biases. To truly understand a bird's sense of musicality, we must ask whether the bird hears its own song as music. This inquiry shifts the attention from studying the structure of music to studying the structure of musicality. 

Over the last two decades it has become evident that humans share a natural predisposition for music, akin to our inherent capacity for language (Hagoort, 2019). This predisposition, which I like to term musicality, encompasses a set of traits that develops spontaneously, is shaped by our cognitive abilities, as well being constrained by its underlying biology. Unlike music itself, which varies across cultures and societies, musicality refers to the cognitive and biological capacities that enable us to perceive and appreciate music, even among those who may not play an instrument or sing out of tune (Honing et al., 2015). 

The shift in the study of the origins of music, from studying the structural aspects of music to trying to understand the structure of our capacity for music, marks an important change in perspective in music research, as reflected in the titles of two foundational meetings and their resulting publications: The Origins of Music (Wallin et al., 2000) and, consequently, The Origins of Musicality (Honing, 2018b). While the cross-cultural study of the structure of music (melodic patterns, scales, tonality, etc.) has offered exciting insights (Mehr et al., 2019; Savage et al., 2015), the approach used in these studies is indirect: the object of study here is music—the result of musicality—rather than musicality itself. Hence it is virtually impossible to distinguish between the individual contributions of culture and biology. For example, it is not clear whether the division of an octave into small and unequal intervals in a particular musical culture results from a widespread theoretical doctrine or from a music perception ability or a biological constrained predisposition. 

All this is an important motivation to study the structure of musicality– i.e. the capacity for music–, its constituent components (see Table 1), and how these might be shared with other animals, aiming to disentangle the biological, cultural and environmental contributions to the human capacity for music. All these are topics that are elegantly addressed in the current volume. 

[This text is a fragment of a preliminary version of an introductory chapter of The Biology of Music (Ravignani, in press)]

Ravignani, A. (ed.) (in press) The Biology of Music: Interdisciplinary Insights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Saturday, July 13, 2024

Do you know a parrot that talks or sings?

The Bird Singalong and Speech Project needs you. You can contribute by uploading audio clips of your parrot and its learning source to the survey at manyparrots.org.


Wednesday, April 27, 2022

Was Darwin right? (New book, translated in German and Italian)

Aap slaat maat (Nieuw Amsterdam), translated as The Evolving Animal Orchestra (MIT Press),  Der Affe schlägt den Takt (Henschel Verlag), and Il scimmia batte il tempo (Carocci editore).

Appraisal of The Evolving Animal Orchestra (MIT Press):

"In 1871 Charles Darwin argued :

The perception, if not the enjoyment, of musical cadences and of rhythm is probably common to all animals.

Henkjan Honing has tested this eminent reasonable idea, and in his bookhe reports back. He details his disappointment, frustration and downright failure with such wit, humility and a love of the chase that any young person reading it will surely want to run away to become a cognitive scientist." 

–– Simon Ings in NewScientist.

"Honing’s new book provides a succinct, informal though rigorous overview of what we know of cross-species musicality. [..] Most science happens as a tiresome journey, and what the public sees is only the splendidness of arrival – that's not the case of this book. This is a popular science book, intriguing and entertaining." 

–– Andrea Ravignani in Current Biology

"Originally published in 2018 in the Netherlands, the new English translation by Sherry MacDonald has been eagerly awaited by students and scholars who are curious about music’s place beyond the strictly human. I believe they will not be disappointed, for Honing’s book offers a number of insights for both the amateur and the scientist in a readable prose style." 

–– Rachel Mundy in Psychology of Music.

For more endorsements, see here.
For related podcasts, see HedgehogandtheFox and BigBiology.
For related documentaries, see
CBC, Sky Tv and here.
For links to all the books, see here.

Saturday, February 22, 2020

Is our capacity for music special?


In this conversation, Christopher Sutton of Musical U talks about: The crucial research study with newborn infants that changed Henkjan Honing's thinking about musicality research; Two surprising facts about absolute pitch (or perfect pitch) that might completely change how you think about this seemingly-magical skill; And what the state-of-the-art scientific research tells us about how much musicality is an innate part of us versus a purely-learned skill.

More information at the website of Musical U. Check it out!

Sunday, February 09, 2020

What is musicality?

Are we the only musical species? What do you need to know in order to be musical? Is our musical predisposition unique, like our linguistic ability?

Below a video registration of a lively evening at Paradiso in Amsterdam on Monday 27 January 2020, organised by Science & Cocktails Amsterdam: in search of what makes us musical !

Honing, H. (2019). The evolving animal orchestra. In search of what makes us musical. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Friday, December 20, 2019

动物能“听懂”音乐吗?[Chinese]

[Text as published in Nautilus and adapted from The Evolving Animal Orchestra: In Search of What Makes Us Musical (2019, the MIT Press). Chinese version by Levitan; text correction courtesy of Zhi-Yuan Ning (Leiden University).]

利维坦按:我观察了多次,不论播放摇滚乐还是钢琴曲,家里的三只猫明显是毫无反应的,也就是说,基本等于没有听到任何声音的那种状态。于是我很好奇,猫明显是听到了某种“声响”,但这种响动对于它们而言究竟意味着什么呢?

本文基于创作共同协议(BY-NC),由antusen在利维坦发布

文章仅为作者观点,未必代表利维坦立场

我们与生俱来的自发发育的音乐倾向能通过听音乐而被巩固下来。几乎人人都有体验、鉴赏音乐所必需的音乐能力。“相对音感”能力使我们能借助音高或节奏辨认出旋律;“节拍感知”能力使我们得以在千变万化的节奏中找到规律。甚至婴儿对身边的声调、旋律、节奏或动态噪声都异常敏感。所有迹象都表明,人早在诞生之初就做好了感知与享受音乐的生物学准备。
人类的乐感显然是不寻常的。乐感基于且受限于我们的认知能力(注意力、记忆力、预见力)及禀性(生物学意义的),是自发形成的一系列自然特征。但它为何如此特别呢?是因为人类有可能是唯一具备所有这些音乐本领的物种吗?或是因为这些对音乐的倾向也像语言能力那样为人类所独有呢?亦或乐感原本就是人类与其它物种共享的自然进化产物? 《我和狗狗一起弹钢琴》: [link]

研究音乐的亨詹·霍尼(Henkjan Honing)怀疑这个广为流传的视频里的狗狗并没有音高辨别力(一种听力以外的知觉能力),它只能利用主人目光所指示的线索来找到正确的琴键。 达尔文认为所有的脊椎动物应该都能感知、欣赏节奏与旋律,仅仅是基于它们相似的神经系统。他确信人类的乐感是有生物学基础的。此外,他还认为,音乐敏感性肯定是一种非常古老的特质,比语言敏感性还要古老许多。事实上,他认为音乐与语言都起源于乐感,并将其在人类和其它动物中的由来归因于性选择的演化机制。。

那么和人类相比,动物的乐感好到什么程度呢?乐感是人类独有的吗?亦或如达尔文所推测的那样,(人类和动物)“神经系统的生理特性相同”,因而都具有乐感?想了解音乐与乐感的演化过程,我们必须先确定音乐的组成部分是什么,及它们如何在动物和人类身上体现出来。或许我们能借此判断是否只有人类才有乐感。

20世纪初,伊万·巴甫洛夫(Ivan Pavlov)发现,狗能记住某个单音调并将其与食物联系起来。狼、老鼠、椋鸟和恒河猴都能通过叫声的绝对音高识别同类,并能辨别音调。 然而相对音感是一种更具音乐性的听音能力。大多数人听的是整首旋律,而不是专注于一段旋律里的个别音调及其频率。无论对方用高音还是低音唱《玛丽有只小羊羔》,你都能听出那首歌。即便在嘈杂的咖啡馆里听到扩音器里传出的曲调,你仍然能够立即辨认出是哪首歌。
但这是谁唱的呢?你绞尽脑汁想记起歌手的名字或歌曲的名字,然而大脑却一片空白,于是你打开听歌识曲软件,把智能手机对着扬声器,几秒钟内就找到了歌名、歌手和所属专辑。 “存在一种听音模式使得音色这一要素在现代作曲家的作品中占有重要的地位的,鸣禽也具备。”

为了使听音识曲成为可能,软件开发者系统分析并高效保存了大部分可商用的歌曲录音。每首歌都有可以体现其特定声音品质的独特“声学指纹”,这些指纹被储藏在存量浩大的档案中。计算机程序会比对智能手机所接收音乐与存档音乐的“指纹”,进而快速有效地听音识曲。对计算机而言,这简直是小菜一碟,但对人类来说,这几乎是不可能的任务。

然而,如果把智能手机靠向正在唱同一首歌的人,软件要么会表示自己无法识别,要么会乱猜一通。因为数据库中只有有限的经过分析的音乐版本,没有这种随意唱出的音乐,所以软件无法找到对应的“指纹”。而在这种情况下,人类却能立即识别出歌曲,那首歌甚至可能会在他们的脑海中循环播放好几天。

也就是说,计算机会惊讶地发现,无论演唱者音调是高是低,节奏是快是慢,跑调还是不跑调,人类只需要听半首歌就能识别出歌手或歌曲。毕竟对人类而言,听音乐的乐趣之一正是源于聆听音调之间的结构性(包括旋律性和谐和性)。

长期以来,科学家一直认为鸣禽拥有绝对音高辨别力,能根据音高或基频识别并记住旋律。40多年前,美国鸟类研究学者斯图尔特·赫尔斯(Stewart Hulse)以欧洲椋鸟为研究对象,进行了一系列听音实验,进而得出了这一结论。他指出,椋鸟能区分出逐渐升高或降低的音调序列,但却识别不了振动频率略升高或降低的音调序列。赫尔斯的结论是,鸟类关注的是绝对频率。和多数哺乳动物一样,欧洲椋鸟拥有绝对音高辨别力,而非相对音高辨别力。
谈及相对音高辨别力,或者说识别移调乐曲的能力,以人类为观察对象的研究已经比较深入了。神经科学研究表明,使用相对音高辨别力时,需要调用由不同神经机制构成的复杂网络,其中包括听觉与顶叶皮层之间交互作用的神经网络。而鸣禽似乎没有这类神经网络,鉴于此点,当我们研究人类乐感的生物学起源时,其他动物是否也拥有相对音高辨别力这个问题就更加令人着迷了。

据我们目前所知,大多数动物没有相对音高辨别力。人类似乎是个例外。但有人可能会猜测相对音高辨别力是否仅与音高相关。也许乐感并非源于声音的那些绝对物理特征,而是源于这些物理特征之间的结构性关系。

2016年,加州大学圣地亚哥分校的研究人员提供了解答这一问题的方向。他们让椋鸟听了音色、音高都经过处理的不同旋律。使用了俗称音色旋律的刺激物——由不同音色的音调组成的音调序列。他们通过一系列声学实验研究了鸟类是如何利用声学特征对从没接触过的陌生旋律进行归类的。 “鱼能够分辨出约翰·李·胡克(John Lee Hooker)和约翰·塞巴斯蒂安·巴赫(Johann Sebastian Bach)的作品。”

令人惊讶的是,研究人员发现椋鸟并不像预料的那样借助音高来区分刺激物,它们借助的是音色本身及其变化(声谱包络)。即便某首特定的歌曲经过“噪音声码”技术处理后,其中所有音高信息已被去除了,鸟类仍会对这首歌做出反应。由此“噪音声码”技术处理过的音色旋律,其音符切换时缺乏可察觉的音高信息,听起来类似嘈杂之音。就如赫尔斯以欧洲椋鸟为研究对象的实验(使用的刺激物由缺少频谱信息的纯音组成),鸣禽只有在可用的频谱信息极少时才会关注刺激物的音高信息。

鸣禽主要靠频谱信息及其随时间的变化,更确切地说,靠音符切换时频谱能量的变化来感知旋律。而人类关注的是音高,基本不会注意音色。
可以说,鸣禽听旋律的方式就像人类听语音一样。听语音时,人类主要关注的是频谱信息,这让我们能够区分单词“bath”和“bed”。在乐曲中,旋律和节奏是需要关注的重点。就说话而言,音高是次要的——它可以表明说话者的身份或话语的情感意义,但谈及音乐,它便成了首要因素。这就是音乐听觉体验与语音听觉体验之间一个奇异而有趣的区别,只不过目前还难以被人们所理解。

一种可能的解释认为乐感是大脑皮层的副产品,即大脑皮层为语言而生,并且受音乐超常地刺激。然而反过来解释也是有可能的,即乐感先于语言和音乐而存在。根据这种观点,乐感可被解读为人类及许多非人类物种所共有的禀性,只不过在人类身上,这种禀性已演化成为部分地重合的两个认知系统:音乐与语言。

2014年,在奥地利召开的一场国际会议上,笔者偶然发现了支持这一观点的实验证据。在某次讲座中,维也纳大学(University of Vienna)的博士后研究员米歇尔·施皮林斯(Michelle Spierings)曾揭示过斑胸草雀(zebra finches)识别声音序列(她称之为音节)差异的学习过程。这些声音由“mo”、“ca”、“pu”等人类的话语组成。在不同的行为实验中系统地调整这些语音的序列(句法)、音调、音延及动态范围(声谱包络)。

斑胸草雀得先学会区分Xyxy和xxyY序列,其中x和y代表不同的语音,大写字母代表乐调重音:即更高、更长或音量更大的音节。举个例子:“MO-ca-mo-ca”不同于“mo-mo-ca-CA”。 然后,斑胸草雀会听见一段重音、结构都有所变化的陌生序列。该测试目的在于确定鸟类是用乐调重音还是音节顺序来区分语音差异的。

如米歇尔所示,人类主要基于音节顺序来区分差异:譬如abab与aabb不同,而cdcd与abab相似。人类会将abab结构顺序“归纳化”,并推演到尚未听到的cdcd序列。这表明人类听到语音序列时,主要关注的是句法或音节顺序。而句法(一种语序,如“人咬狗”)正是语言的一个重要特征。

相比之下,斑胸草雀主要把注意力放在序列的音乐特质之上,但这并不意味着它们对语序不敏感(其实在某种程度上,它们能理解语序),只不过它们主要靠音高(语调)、时长和力重音(音韵)来区分语音序列。

如果没有解读错的话,研究结果将表明人类的听音模式可能与斑胸草雀一样,这种听音模式关注的是声音的音乐特质(音韵),而非倾听话语时密切关注的句法与语义。 笔者又想起了达尔文。人类和斑胸草雀的听音过程是否密切相关?

针对椋鸟和斑胸草雀的研究表明,鸣禽会收集利用全声谱的信息。它们具有相对音感,基于音色轮廓曲线、语调及声音的动态范围听音。这种音乐理论家早就有所察觉的听音模式已使埃德加·瓦雷兹(Edgard Varèse)、 捷尔吉·利盖蒂(György Ligeti)、卡佳·萨丽亚诺(Kaija Saariaho)等现代作曲家,在他们的作品中尤为着重音色的表现力。

有相对音高辨别力的人不仅仅能听出音高之间的关系。即便面对音高无法辨认的熟识旋律,他们也能借助这声音其他方面的轮廓特征(声谱包络)将其辨认出来。但人们对声谱包络不怎么感兴趣。 一个有趣的问题由此产生:人类需要什么样的特质才能像鸣禽一样听音?或者,反过来说,鸣禽有可能像人类那样听音乐吗? 人类和鸣禽听音时都有自己的策略和偏好。笔者研究斑胸草雀时,发现韵律结构并非此鸟最关注的因素。有证据表明,斑胸草雀最关注语调、音色和动态变化,最不关注声音的时序特征。事实上,对斑胸草雀而言,与歌曲音节间的时序结构相比,韵律蕴含的信息可能更多。

针对斑胸草雀的研究结果迫使笔者意识到,对人类显而易见的东西,对动物却未必如此。当我们不由自主被节奏中的规律性吸引时,斑胸草雀似乎更关注“局部”,如单音或时程。这很好地诠释了美国心理学家詹姆斯·吉布森(James J. Gibson)(也是我最喜欢的)一句妙语:“事可知,而时不可” (“Events are perceivable but time is not”)。只有事件发生时,才能感知时间。在斑胸草雀的例子中,这种“事件”似乎是被它们赋予某些特定特征的单个声音,而非声音序列的时序结构(声音序列承前启后所形成的节奏)。

从这个意义上说,人类的听音模式更具全局性与抽象性,更关注整体。我们过于擅长观察与聆听“结构性”,虽说这些“结构性”通常源于个人经验与预见,而并非真实地存在。这就是为什么我们会惊讶于,其他动物似乎用比人类复杂许多的方式来解决问题。不过,我们眼中最简单的解决方案(结构性)并不总是动物眼中最简单的解决方案(细节性)。

举个出人意料却轻而易举解决视觉领域难题的事例:我们要开发一个搜索算法以便在互联网上找到飞机照片。这是一项艰巨的任务,因为所摄物体(比如鸟、蓝色背景下的白色或金属物体)与飞机某些特征相符的照片数不胜数。

经典的人工智能方案会这样解决问题:创建一个知识导向型系统,该系统可将飞机的典型特征编成的精确规则(可由计算机解释)。这个特征清单可以很长:细长的对称物体、两个机翼、一个机头和一个机尾、两边的小窗户、机头或机尾上的螺旋桨等。编写一份涵盖所有飞机特征的清单虽不容易,但却能将飞机和鸟类及类似飞机的物体区分开。 “如果把智能手机靠向正在唱同一首歌的人,软件无法识别对方在唱什么。”

最新的计算机模拟系统强有力地证明,知识导向型的系统不是判断照片中是否有飞机的最有效方法。所有复杂的推理都是多余的。是否有飞机只需简单关注一个细节:照片中是否有前轮? 常被用于归类实验的斑胸草雀和其它实验动物或许也可以做到这一点。或者说,其实它们倾听的是音乐的“前轮”:与音乐本质无关的某个细节。鸟能记住并辨认出某个独特的细节,这个细节通常是鸟类觅食的有效线索,进而让鸟有必要继续专注于它。

可以肯定的是,人类、鸣禽、鸽子、老鼠和某些鱼(如金鱼和鲤鱼)可以轻易分辨出不同的旋律。但仍然存疑的是,它们在辨别旋律时是否像人类那样利用了音乐的结构性特征。 在北美,某项针对锦鲤(类似金鱼的鱼,听力比大多数鱼好)的研究提供了一个不同寻常的例子。因为听力好,锦鲤常被叫作“听力专家”。它们的听觉灵敏到仿若在通过电话线收听声音:虽然大部分声音高频段及低频段的音质可能比较差,但在它们听起来仍非常的清晰。

三条锦鲤——小美女(Beauty)、奥罗(Oro)和佩皮(Pepi)——生活在哈佛大学罗兰研究所的水族馆内,它们在那里参加过各种各样的听力实验。在早期实验里,它们就已知道按下水箱底部的按钮就会得到食物,但前提是要同时听见音乐。目前,实验主要在研究鲤鱼的音乐识别能力。研究人员不仅会教它们区分两首音乐(辨别能力),还会观察它们是否能识别出不熟悉的音乐是否与某首乐曲类似(归类能力)。

进行辨别实验时,研究人员会播放约翰·塞巴斯蒂安·巴赫和蓝调歌手约翰·李·胡克的作品,并观察锦鲤能否加以区分。在分类实验中,研究人员会测试锦鲤是否能将某乐曲归类为蓝调或古典风格。在后一种实验中,锦鲤会交替聆听到不同蓝调歌手及古典作曲家的作品,从维瓦尔第(Vivaldi)到舒伯特(Schubert)应有尽有。

实验的结果令人惊讶,这三只锦鲤不仅能区分约翰·李·胡克和巴赫的作品,还能区分蓝调及一般古典音乐流派。这些鱼似乎能依据先前学到的音乐区别,正确归类一首从未听过的新乐曲。 但锦鲤这种乐曲归类决策的生物学基础是什么?为何它们能区分乐曲?它们到底听到了什么?研究表明,锦鲤并不是根据乐曲的音色来加以区分的,即便用同一乐器的不同音色演奏古典和蓝调旋律,锦鲤仍然能够做出区分。

锦鲤实验的灵感来自于1984年一项针对岩鸽音乐辨别能力的研究。事实证明,岩鸽也能区分巴赫和斯特拉文斯基(Stravinsky)的作品。而且,和锦鲤一样,岩鸽也能把从两首乐曲中学到的东西应用到其他不熟悉的曲子上。它们甚至能区分与巴赫及斯特拉文斯基同时代之人的作品。

岩鸽和锦鲤能做某些对普通人类听众而言相当困难的事:判断一段音乐是巴赫时代(18世纪)的作品,还是斯特拉文斯基时代(20世纪)的作品。它们无需积累听音经验,无需大量收集音乐,无需定期听音乐会就能做到这点。笔者怀疑它们是靠某个独特的细节(在本质上是一种不寻常的特征)区分乐曲。这个细节很可能有助于它们成功获取食物。然而,我们仍无法借此深入了解音乐“若非享受,则为感知”的内涵。这或许是独属于人类的乐感的某方面表现。

有关作者:亨詹·霍尼是阿姆斯特丹大学音乐认知学教授,著有《进化中的动物管弦乐队:探索是什么让我们拥有乐感及音乐认知学:听音科学》(The Evolving Animal Orchestra: In Search of What Makes Us Musical and Musical Cognition: A Science of Listening)。

Friday, November 15, 2019

What makes us musical animals? (ISMIR 2019 Keynote @TUDelft)



[N.B. Starts around 06:00]

What makes us musical animals, a one hour keynote at ISMIR 2019:
"We are all born with a predisposition for music, a predisposition that develops spontaneously and is refined by listening to music. Nearly everyone possesses the musical skills essential to experiencing and appreciating music. Think of “relative pitch,” recognizing a melody separately from the exact pitch or tempo at which it is sung, and “beat perception,” hearing regularity in a varying rhythm. Research shows that all humans possess the trait of musicality. We are a musical species — but are we the only musical species? Can there be musical machines? In his presentation, Henkjan Honing embarks upon the quest to discover the cognitive and biological mechanisms that underpin musicality."

Monday, April 29, 2019

In search of the origins of musicality?

This week, George Miller in the Hedgehog and the Fox investigates the origins of human musicality by looking for musical ability and perception in other animals, including rhesus macaques, zebra finches, a cockatoo named Snowball, and Ronan, a headbanging California sea lion. Miller's guide to the Evolving Animal Orchestra, is Henkjan Honing, professor of music cognition at the University of Amsterdam.



Honing’s book is not about the origins of music, but the structure of musicality, that collection of attributes that enable us to make and appreciate music, such as perception of a regular beat or the ability to imitate a melody. If such traits are based on our cognitive abilities and biological predispositions, it makes sense to look for them in other animals. All sorts of fascinating hypotheses then open up: if musicality is a sensitivity that humans share with many non-human species, it may have preceded the development of music and of language, but enabled both.

Thursday, April 04, 2019

Can all animals keep the beat?

Paula Bronstein/Getty Images


Darwin believed in the musicality of animals. The truth may be more interesting, says Simon Ings in the NewScientist of 3 April 2019:
"THE perception, if not the enjoyment, of musical cadences and of rhythm," wrote Darwin in his 1871 book The Descent of Man, "is probably common to all animals."
Henkjan Honing has tested this eminently reasonable idea, and in his book, The Evolving Animal Orchestra, he reports back. He details his disappointment, frustration and downright failure with such wit, humility and a love of the chase that any young person reading it will surely want to run away to become a cognitive scientist.
No culture has yet been found that doesn't have music, and all music shares certain universal characteristics: melodies composed of seven or fewer discrete pitches; a regular beat; a limited sequence of rhythmic patterns. All this would suggest a biological basis for musicality.
A bird flies with regular beats of its wings. Animals walk with a particular rhythm. So you might expect beat perception to be present in everything that doesn't want to falter when moving. But it isn't. Honing describes experiments that demonstrate conclusively that we are the only primates with a sense of rhythm, possibly deriving from advanced beat perception.
Only strongly social animals, he writes, from songbirds and parrots to elephants and humans, have beat perception. What if musicality was acquired by all prosocial species through a process of convergent evolution? Like some other cognitive scientists, Honing now wonders whether language might derive from music, in a similar way to how reading uses much older neural structures that recognise contrast and sharp corners.
Honing must now test this exciting hypothesis. And if The Evolving Animal Orchestra is how he responds to disappointment, I can't wait to see what he makes of success." – Simon Ings (NewScientist).

Monday, March 18, 2019

What makes music special to us?

We are all born with a predisposition for music, a predisposition that develops spontaneously and is refined by listening to music. Nearly everyone possesses the musical skills essential to experiencing and appreciating music. Think of “relative pitch,”recognizing a melody separately from the exact pitch or tempo at which it is sung, and “beat perception,”hearing regularity in a varying rhythm. Even human newborns turn out to be sensitive to intonation or melody, rhythm, and the dynamics of the noise in their surroundings. Everything suggests that human biology is already primed for music at birth with respect to both the perception and enjoyment of listening.

Human musicality is clearly special. Musicality being a set of natural, spontaneously developing traits based on, or constrained by, our cognitive abilities (attention, memory, expectation) and our biological predisposition. But what makes it special? Is it because we appear to be the only animals with such a vast musical repertoire? Is our musical predisposition unique, like our linguistic ability? Or is musicality something with a long evolutionary history that we share with other animals?

Read the full article in Nautilus Magazine of March 14, 2019.


Saturday, March 09, 2019

A look behind the scenes?

[Fragment from Q&A on The Evolving Animal Orchestra by science journalist Rachel Becker of The Verge]

"In June 2014, music cognition professor Henkjan Honing witnessed a strange sight: a sea lion named Ronan headbanging to a beat. When the beat sped up or slowed down, so did the bops of Ronan’s head. And when “Boogie Wonderland” by Earth, Wind & Fire started playing over the speakers, Ronan kept perfect time.

Moving with a beat may sound trivial to us humans. But Ronan’s rhythm, first published by researchers at the University of Santa Cruz in 2013, is a major clue in the quest to understand why we have music, and how it became such an important cornerstone of human culture. That’s the quest Honing, a professor at the University of Amsterdam, sets for himself in his new book, The Evolving Animal Orchestra, translated by Sherry Macdonald and published this week by MIT Press. 

The book follows Honing around the world — from Mexico, to Japan, to Santa Cruz, and back to the Netherlands. He meets animals with rhythm, and a man with none. Throughout, he grapples with the central question: why can humans perceive and appreciate music — and can other animals do it, too?" 

Read the full interview here.

Monday, March 04, 2019

What is playing music for rhesus monkeys teaching us about our own brains?


Adapted from "The Evolving Animal Orchestra: In Search of What Makes Us Musical", by Dr. Henkjan Honing, translated by Sherry Macdonald, The MIT PRESS, 2019.
Fragment from publication in salon.com from 4 March 2019:

"As a music cognition researcher interested in whether primates conceive of music, I was curious to understand more about the significance of sound for rhesus macaques in their natural habitat. Although they are confronted with sounds on a daily basis in the laboratory, it struck me as important to examine the role of sound and musicality in their life in the wild. Not all primate researchers agree, but it appears that, generally speaking, most Old World primates show little interest in sound, let alone music. Of all their senses, seeing and smelling have much more important functions. Numerous studies of rhesus macaques indicate that their limited repertoire of noises serves mainly to signal either a threatening or a submissive stance. The noises they make play a significant role in determining and maintaining hierarchy in the group. Stare straight into the eyes of a rhesus macaque, as I did with Capi, and it will instantly feel threatened. The animal will grimace, bare its teeth, and start growling. The emotions of rhesus macaques can be read easily from their faces (by humans and rhesus macaques, that is), and their vocalizations add little to this picture."

For the complete article, see publication in salon.com.

Saturday, September 22, 2018

Music, explained?

"Music is everywhere. We hear it in our cars, in coffee shops, on TV, and at church. We use it to learn, remember, feel, celebrate, and connect. Every known human culture has had some form of music. But in the rest of the animal world, the ability to understand and create music is rare. Where humans might hear rhythm and melody, rhesus monkeys, for example, just hear noise. So what makes music so universal among humans? How does sound become something more? And how does it evoke such a wide range of emotions?"
Joe Posner of Vox tackled these questions in a recent episode of the Netflix' Explained series. See Music, explained (Episode 20) here.

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Interested in physics and music?

The most recent issue of the Dutch Journal of Physics (DJoP) is dedicated to music and musicality. See the online version here.

The Dutch Journal of Physics is a magazine published by the Netherlands’ Physical Society (Nederlandse Natuurkundige Vereniging). The e-magazine was developed for tablets and smartphones and can be downloaded for free in the Appstore and Playstore.

Monday, August 28, 2017

Wat muzikale dieren ons kunnen leren? [Dutch]

Duif houdt componisten uit elkaar, geelkuifkaketoe heeft maatgevoel en spreeuw herkent toonladders. Om te achterhalen waar onze muzikaliteit vandaan komt, hebben onderzoekers zich op het dierenrijk gestort. Ze vinden meer en meer dieren met muzikale trekjes.
'Het gaat er niet om of dieren iets maken dat voor ons als muziek klinkt, het gaat erom of ze het zelf zo ervaren'
Het volledige artikel is hier te lezen.

Saturday, November 19, 2016

What makes us musical animals?

A pair of gibbons sing together (credit: Andrew Walmsley / NPL)
Exploring the biological and social processes that underly our musical abilities, Nancy Ferranti talks to music researcher Henkjan Honing about the origins of music and musical behaviours. The podcast was broadcasted this morning at CKUT, a campus-community radio station based at McGill University.



Monday, June 15, 2015

Can one trace the origins of musicality?

Update: the complete issue on Musicality (12 papers) is free to download in March 2015. See website Phil Trans B for details.

[Press release of the UvA; Dutch|English]

Why do we have music? And what enables us to perceive, appreciate and make music? The search for a possible answer to these and other questions forms the backdrop to a soon-to-be released theme issue of Philosophical Transactions, which deals with the subject of musicality. An initiative of Henkjan Honing, professor of Music Cognition at the University of Amsterdam (UvA), this theme issue will see Honing and fellow researchers present their most important empirical results and offer a joint research agenda with which to identify the biological and cognitive basis of musicality.

Researchers have long been wary of the notion that music might have a biological basis. Music was originally viewed as a cultural artifact and as something that in evolutionary terms has existed for too short a period to have shaped human perception and cognition. The question is whether it is at all possible to gain insight into the evolution of cognition, and by extension music cognition. Sceptics argue that the necessary proof will never be found because cognition doesn't fossilise (i.e. it is impossible to obtain the requisite evidence).

Music or musicality?
Honing, who is the driving force behind the theme issue, argues that the origin of musicality can most definitely be discovered by using a bottom-up approach in which one looks for the basic mechanisms that combine into a complex trait – in this case musicality. Honing: 'Many studies on the biological origin of music are centred on the question of how to define music. This raises the question, for example, whether birdsong and the song structure of humpback whales can be considered music. To address such issues effectively, however, it is important to distinguish between the notions of music and musicality. Musicality in all its complexity can be defined as a natural, spontaneously developing set of traits based on and constrained by our cognitive and biological system. Music in all its variety can be defined as a social and cultural construct based on that very musicality. This distinction allows us to search for the different constituent aspects that form the basis for the phenotype musicality.'

This bottom-up strategy serves as the starting point for a new research agenda that has been drawn up by Honing and a consortium of international experts from a wide range of disciplines, including musicology, computational cognition, anthropology and psychology. According to Honing, such a 'multicomponent' perspective on musicality will help to emphasise the latter's constituent capacities, development and neural cognitive specificity, and will throw light on the origins and evolution of musical behaviour.

Bringing together global expertise
The forthcoming theme issue of Philosophical Transactions is a direct result of a Distinguished Lorentz Fellowship that was awarded to Honing last year by the Lorentz Center and the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences (NIAS). This fellowship allowed Honing to bring together over twenty internationally renowned experts from the fields of cognition, biology and musicality. The theme issue will contain 11 articles on topics such as the biological basis for individual differences in musicality, the origins of musicality across species, and the principles of structure building in music, language and animal song.

The world's oldest scientific journal
As the world's longest-running scientific journal, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society – which this year celebrates its 350th anniversary – publishes high-quality theme issues on topics of current importance and general interest within the life sciences. Some of its most notable contributors have included Charles Darwin, Isaac Newton and, more recently, Stephen Hawking.




ResearchBlogging.orgHoning, H., ten Cate, C., Peretz, I., & Trehub, S. (2015). Without it no music: cognition, biology and evolution of musicality Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370 (1664), 20140088-20140088 DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2014.0088

ResearchBlogging.orgGingras, B., Honing, H., Peretz, I., Trainor, L., & Fisher, S. (2015). Defining the biological bases of individual differences in musicality Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370 (1664), 20140092-20140092 DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2014.0092

ResearchBlogging.orgFitch, W. (2015). Four principles of bio-musicology Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370 (1664), 20140091-20140091 DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2014.0091

ResearchBlogging.org Hoeschele, M., Merchant, H., Kikuchi, Y., Hattori, Y., & ten Cate, C. (2015). Searching for the origins of musicality across species Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370 (1664), 20140094-20140094 DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2014.0094

The complete theme issue (12 papers) can be found here.

Monday, January 26, 2015

Without it no music?

Cover picture of the March issue of  Philosophical Transactions B.

A short entry to announce a theme issue on Musicality in Philosophical Transactions B (celebrating this year its 350th anniversary). Online 2 February 2015 and in print on 19 March 2015.

ResearchBlogging.orgHoning H, ten Cate C, Peretz I, & Trehub SE (2015, in press). Without it no music: cognition, biology and evolution of musicality Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 370 (1664). 10.1098/rstb.2014.0088

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Difference between the GAE and VL hypothesis?

Summary diagrams of vocal systems in songbirds, humans, monkeys, and mice. 
(Figure 1 from Petkov & Jarvis in Ackermann et al., 2014).

Today a commentary was published in BBS in which the gradual audiomotor evolution (GAE) hypothesis (Honing & Merchant, 2014) is proposed as an alternative interpretation to the auditory timing mechanisms discussed in the target article by Ackermann et al. (2014).

While often a link is made between vocal learning (VL) and a species' auditory timing skills (e.g., 'entrainment'), the GAE and VL hypotheses show the following crucial differences.

First, the GAE hypothesis does not claim that the neural circuit that is engaged in rhythmic entrainment is deeply linked to vocal perception, production, and learning, even if some overlap between the circuits exists.

Second, the GAE hypothesis suggests that rhythmic entrainment could have developed through a gradient of anatomofunctional changes on the interval-based mechanism to generate an additional beat-based mechanism, instead of claiming a categorical jump from non-rhythmic/single-interval to rhythmic entrainment/multiple-interval abilities.

Third, since the cortico-basal ganglia-thalamic (CBGT) circuit has been involved in beat-based mechanisms in imaging studies, we suggest that the reverberant flow of audiomotor information that loops across the anterior pre-frontal CBGT circuits may be the underpinning of human rhythmic entrainment.

Finally, the GAE hypothesis suggests that the integration of sensorimotor information throughout the mCBGT circuit and other brain areas during the perception or execution of single intervals is similar in human and nonhuman primates.

ResearchBlogging.orgAckermann, H., Hage, S., & Ziegler, W. (2014). Brain mechanisms of acoustic communication in humans and nonhuman primates: An evolutionary perspective Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1-84 DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X13003099
 
ResearchBlogging.orgHoning, H., & Merchant, H. (2014). Differences in auditory timing between human and non-human primates. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(6), 557-558 DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X13004056. [Alternative link: http://www.mcg.uva.nl/papers/Honing-Merchant-2014.pdf ]
 
ResearchBlogging.orgMerchant, H., & Honing, H. (2014). Are non-human primates capable of rhythmic entrainment? Evidence for the gradual audiomotor evolution hypothesis. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 7 (274) 1-8. doi 10.3389/fnins.2013.00274