The contribution of source–filter theory to mammal vocal communication research

By Anna M. Taylor, D. Reby. 2010

411 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental Biology, Ecology, Small Animals

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c696490011dbee4661643ee438d0b49a64f41320

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental Biology

1. A. McElligott
2. Karin A. Laurijs
3. L. Webb
4. I. Reimert
5. L. DeBruine
6. David Feinberg
7. B. Jones
8. Tom Reader

In Ecology

1. A. McElligott
2. Karin A. Laurijs
3. L. Webb
4. I. Reimert
5. Tom Reader
6. M. Torre
7. Polly Campbell
8. K. Pisanski

In Small Animals

1. B. Jones
2. K. Pisanski
3. L. DeBruine
4. J. O'Connor
5. C. C. Tigue
6. Polly Campbell
7. Tom Reader
8. A. McElligott

Citations in the corpus

• Vocalisations in farm animals: A step towards positive welfare assessment (2021, background): “According to the source-filter theory, a vocalisation is generated at a source, the vocal folds, and is then filtered by the vocal tract (Titze, 1994; Taylor and Reby, 2010).”
• Acoustic analysis of cattle ( Bos taurus ) mother–offspring contact calls from a source–filter theory perspective (2015, methodology): “The physical characteristics of the filter, such as length and shape of the cavities of the vocal tract, pharynx, mouth and nasal cavities, determine the frequencies of the formants and the relative energy distribution in the spectrum (McComb and Reby, 2005; Taylor and Reby, 2010).”
• Social effects on vocal ontogeny in an ungulate, the goat, Capra hircus (2012, background): “…(F0 contour) and filter-related acoustic features (formants and energy quartiles; 23 parameters in total), which can potentially be manipulated by muscles of the vocal folds and vocal tract, respectively, inmammals and could thus be influenced by the social environment (Taylor & Reby 2010).”
• Vocal Expression of Emotions in Mammals: Mechanisms of Production and Evidence (2012, methodology): “However, new methods, adapted from studies on human speech to nonhuman mammal vocalizations, could allow a far better understanding of why and to what extent calls vary between individuals and between contexts (Taylor & Reby, 2010).”
• Androgen-dependent male vocal performance influences female preference in Neotropical singing mice (2011, positive): “…in signals that convey information about signaller condition (Maynard Smith & Harper 1995; Vehrencamp 2000; Fitch & Hauser 2003; Hurd & Enquist 2005; Taylor & Reby 2010), and receiver responses to such signals can generate substantial intra- and intersexual selection (Andersson & Simmons 2006).”
• Vocal indicators of body size in men and women: a meta-analysis (2014, background): “Indeed, recent comparative work on mammalian acoustic communication guided by the source-filter framework has generated several novel and testable hypotheses (Ey et al., 2007; Fitch & Hauser, 2003; Gingras et al., 2013; Taylor & Reby, 2010).”