A Cognitive Framework for Mate Choice and Species Recognition

Mating decisions contribute to both the fitness of individuals and the emergence of evolutionary diversity, yet little is known about their cognitive architecture. We propose a simple model that describes how preferences are translated into decisions and how seemingly disparate patterns of preference can emerge from a single perceptual process. The model proposes that females use error‐prone estimates of attractiveness to select mates based on a simple decision rule: choose the most attractive available male that exceeds some minimal criterion. We test the model in the túngara frog, a well‐characterized species with an apparent dissociation between mechanisms of mate choice and species recognition. As suggested by our model results, we find that a mate attraction feature alters assessments of species status. Next, we compare female preferences in one‐choice and two‐choice tests, contexts thought to emphasize species recognition and mate choice, respectively. To do so, we use the model to generate maximum‐likelihood estimators of preference strengths from empirical data. We find that a single representation of preferences is sufficient to explain response probabilities in both contexts across a wide range of stimuli. In this species, mate choice and species recognition are accurately and simply summarized by our model. While the findings resolve long‐standing anomalies, they also illustrate how models of choice can bridge theoretical and empirical treatments of animal decisions. The data demonstrate a remarkable congruity of perceptual processes across contexts, tasks, and taxa.

[1]  Stewart H. Hulse,et al.  The comparative psychology of audition : perceiving complex sounds , 1989 .

[2]  M. Ritchie,et al.  The shape of female mating preferences. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[3]  M. Morris,et al.  Avoiding a compromise between sexual selection and species recognition: female swordtail fish assess multiple species-specific cues , 2003 .

[4]  C. Manski The structure of random utility models , 1977 .

[5]  M. Ryan,et al.  Female Responses to Ancestral Advertisement Calls in T�ngara Frogs , 1995, Science.

[6]  R. Lande Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. , 1981, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  T. Birdsall,et al.  Theory of Signal Detectability: Deferred‐Decision Theory , 1965 .

[8]  M. Ryan,et al.  Neural networks predict response biases of female túngara frogs , 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[9]  R. Luce,et al.  Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. , 1960 .

[10]  J. Endler Signals, Signal Conditions, and the Direction of Evolution , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[11]  L. Jones Measurement of Values , 1959, Nature.

[12]  Mark Kirkpatrick,et al.  Speciation by Natural and Sexual Selection: Models and Experiments , 2002, The American Naturalist.

[13]  M. Ryan,et al.  SPECIES RECOGNITION AND SEXUAL SELECTION AS A UNITARY PROBLEM IN ANIMAL COMMUNICATION , 1993, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[14]  M. Ryan,et al.  Sexual selection and signal evolution : the ghost of biases past , 1993 .

[15]  R. Pike,et al.  Response latencies in the yes/no detection task: An assessment of two basic models , 1973 .

[16]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Response Times: Their Role in Inferring Elementary Mental Organization , 1986 .

[17]  C. Boake,et al.  Is sexual selection and species recognition a continuum? Mating behavior of the stalk-eyed fly Drosophila heteroneura. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[18]  R. Johnstone,et al.  CONSPIRATORIAL WHISPERS AND CONSPICUOUS DISPLAYS: GAMES OF SIGNAL DETECTION , 1998, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[19]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis , 1979 .

[20]  R. Meldola Sexual Selection , 1871, Nature.

[21]  WALTER WILCZYNSKI,et al.  The processing of spectral cues by the call analysis system of the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus , 1995, Animal Behaviour.

[22]  R. Johnstone Honest signalling, perceptual error and the evolution of ‘all-or-nothing’ displays , 1994, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[23]  Johannes Schul,et al.  Pattern recognition and call preferences in treefrogs (Anura: Hylidae): a quantitative analysis using a no-choice paradigm , 2002, Animal Behaviour.

[24]  J. Bradbury,et al.  Economic models of animal communication , 2000, Animal Behaviour.

[25]  Barney Luttbeg,et al.  A Comparative Bayes tactic for mate assessment and choice , 1996 .

[26]  M. Ryan,et al.  Signal variation and call preferences for whine frequency in the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus , 2000, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[27]  Peter Marler,et al.  The perception of birdsong and an ecological concept of signal space. , 1990 .

[28]  H. Reeve,et al.  The Evolution of Conspecific Acceptance Thresholds , 1989, The American Naturalist.

[29]  M. Ryan,et al.  Generalization in Response to Mate Recognition Signals , 2003, The American Naturalist.

[30]  M. Higgie,et al.  Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. , 2000, Science.

[31]  K. Pfennig The evolution of mate choice and the potential for conflict between species and mate–quality recognition , 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[32]  A. Grafen,et al.  Error-prone signalling , 1992, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[33]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

[34]  John A. Doherty,et al.  Phonotaxis in the cricket,Gryllus bimaculatus DeGeer: comparisons of choice and no-choice paradigms , 2004, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[35]  D. von Helversen,et al.  Selective phonotaxis in Tettigonia cantans and T. viridissima in song recognition and discrimination , 1998, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[36]  M. Ryan,et al.  Vestigial preference functions in neural networks and túngara frogs. , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[37]  M. Ryan,et al.  Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the frog Physalaemus pustulosus , 1990, Nature.

[38]  H. Gerhardt Sound Pattern Recognition in Some North American Treefrogs (Anura: Hylidae): Implications for Mate Choice , 1982 .

[39]  Jack W. Bradbury,et al.  Principles of Animal Communication , 1998 .

[40]  William E. Wagner Measuring female mating preferences , 1998, Animal Behaviour.