What to do Among Mocking Bird’s most notable complex songs, Tuvan’s throat, Beethoven’s fifth symphony, is similar to the song “Show Yourself.” Frozen 2, And Kendrick Lamar’s “Duckworth”? According to a recent paper published in the Journal Frontiers in Psychology, Mocking Bird adheres to the same musical rules as those used in human music when composing his songs.

“When you listen to a mockingbird for a while, you can hear that the bird doesn’t smoke just like it does,” said Tina Roske, a neuroscientist associate at the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics. “Lata’s, it seems, is a sequence of similar snippets of melody according to the relevant rules. To scientifically examine this hunch, we had to use quantitative analysis to verify whether the data really supported our hypotheses.”

Mockingbirds are known for their ability to mimic other sounds from other birds and their environment, if those sounds fall into the Mockingbird’s sound range. For example, birds can imitate blue but not crows, tree frogs or even bullfrogs. Half of Mockingbird’s songs are lyrical, and the species boasts an impressive repertoire of hundreds of types of phrases.

There have been numerous studies of Mockingbird Bird songs over the decades, with scientists knowing that Mockingbird usually repeats each new character three to five times, apart from small breaths, before changing something new. (The “syllable” can be a note or a cluster of notes.) A 1987 study classified thousands of song phrases from just four birds, concluding that although there are hundreds of syllable types, most do not occur frequently. ; 25 percent appeared once in the sample data.

No less understandable is how mockingbirds like to sing syllables – that is how they go about composing their complex songs. It is not a random sample. This new study is the first attempt by Kingbird to qualify or quantify a specific creative strategy when combining its musical styling: so-called “morphing modes” similar to the variations on the theme. Three springs were reported in the area in mid-Tuna, and two others came from the publicly available Birdsong database (Zeno-Canto).

All three authors brought a unique perspective to the study, with Roskey specializing in statistical analysis of animal signals. David Rothernberg is a music philosopher at the New Jersey Institute of Technology who studies the connections between music and nature. And Dave Gamen is a field biologist at Alon University in North Carolina, who has studied Mockingbird (and especially a bird) songs for many years.

“When faced with a complex joke bird song, the composer will hear one thing, an ornithologist, and a signal analyst something else,” the authors wrote about the rationale behind this interdisciplinary approach. “The most complete human cognition of any natural phenomenon comes from a combination of different types of human cognition – one perspective ignores the other. They are stronger when applied together.”

The team created spectrograms of Mockingbird’s songs to help visualize component syllables. They listened to the recordings and made their own qualitative assessments of how the birds’ “morphing modes” (transitions between phrases) worked. In the end, they boiled everything down to the four basic creative strategies employed by Mockingbirds as they transition from one sound to another: tumble change, pitch change, pulling transition and squeezing transition. They quantified the frequency of four mods based on the sample songs of three of the five birds used in the study and found that almost all morphing is based on half the wood.

Granted, this is a simplification, and “almost every transition involves more than one of these modes,” the authors admit. The four modes are not a strict system of classification, but more a genetic tool. “We use this as a basis from which a testable hypothesis can be derived,” he wrote, choosing the least common pair (e.g., “house / mouse,” “pool / pool,” and other term pairs commonly used in phonology). By, selecting four modes that differ from one phone).