Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
    • Special Collections
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
    • Editorial Board
    • ECR Advisory Board
    • Journal Staff
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
    • Accessibility
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log out
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log out
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
    • Special Collections
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
    • Editorial Board
    • ECR Advisory Board
    • Journal Staff
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
    • Accessibility
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Research Articles, Behavioral/Cognitive

Detection of Individual Differences Encoded in Sequential Variations of Elements in Zebra Finch Songs

Zhehao Cheng (程柘皓) and Yoko Yazaki-Sugiyama (杉山 (矢崎) 陽子)
Journal of Neuroscience 2 April 2025, 45 (14) e1071242025; https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1071-24.2025
Zhehao Cheng (程柘皓)
Neuronal Mechanism of Critical Period Unit, OIST Graduate University, Kunigami 904-0495, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Zhehao Cheng (程柘皓)
Yoko Yazaki-Sugiyama (杉山 (矢崎) 陽子)
Neuronal Mechanism of Critical Period Unit, OIST Graduate University, Kunigami 904-0495, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Yoko Yazaki-Sugiyama (杉山 (矢崎) 陽子)
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • Peer Review
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Zebra finches sing individually unique songs and recognize conspecific songs and individual identities in songs. Their songs comprise several syllables/elements that share acoustic features within the species, with unique sequential arrangements. However, the neuronal mechanisms underlying the detection of individual differences and species specificity have yet to be elucidated. Herein, we examined the neuronal auditory responsiveness of neurons in the higher auditory area, the caudal nidopallium (NCM), to songs and their elements in male zebra finches to understand the mechanism for detecting species and individual identities in zebra finch songs. We found that various adult male zebra finch songs share acoustically similar song elements but differ in their sequential arrangement between individuals. The broader spiking (BS) neurons in the NCM detected only a small subset of zebra finch songs, whereas NCM BS neurons, as a neuronal ensemble, responded to all zebra finch songs. Notably, distinct combinations of BS neurons responded to each of the 18 presented songs in one bird. Subsets of NCM BS neurons were sensitive to sequential arrangements of species-specific elements, which dramatically increasing the capacity for song variation with a limited number of species-specific elements. The naive Bayes decoder analysis further showed that the response of sequence-sensitive BS neurons increased the accuracy of song stimulus predictions based on the response strength of neuronal ensembles. Our results suggest the neuronal mechanisms that NCM neurons as an ensemble decode the individual identities of songs, while each neuron detects a small subset of song elements and their sequential arrangement.

  • auditory
  • auditory information processing
  • higher auditory cortex
  • songbird
  • sparse coding
  • vocal

Significance Statement

Zebra finches develop unique songs by learning from tutors. Various zebra finch songs consist of repeats of species-specific syllable elements that differ in their sequential arrangements. In vivo, single-unit electrophysiological recordings from neurons in the zebra finch's higher auditory area [caudal nidopallium (NCM)] revealed that each broad-spiking (BS) NCM neuron responded to a small subset of the zebra finch songs. However, an NCM neuronal ensemble detected all the songs. Some NCM BS neurons responded sensitively to sequential song element arrangement, which increased the prediction accuracy in the naive Bayes decoder analysis. These findings suggest a neuronal mechanism for discriminating individual song variations in NCM neuronal ensembles, in which each neuron detects small subsets of song elements and their sequential arrangements.

Introduction

Like other species, songbirds transmit and recognize species and individual identities using their vocal signatures (Stoddard et al., 1991; Elie and Theunissen, 2018). Male zebra finches, one of the most commonly used songbird models, develop individually unique songs by learning from adult tutors, typically fathers, during their development (Zann, 1996). Several behavioral studies have indicated that birds prefer familiar songs, suggesting they memorize and discriminate specific songs (Miller, 1979; Clayton, 1988; Honarmand et al., 2015; Elie and Theunissen, 2018). A recent study has shown that zebra finches can recognize ∼40 songs, remembering them for a long time (Yu et al., 2020), and other studies have shown that they prefer the songs of their species to those of other species (Clayton and Pröve, 1989; Clayton, 1990; Braaten and Reynolds, 1999). Individually different zebra finch songs comprise several syllables/elements that share common acoustic features within species with unique sequential arrangements (Böhner, 1983; Zann, 1993a,b; Sturdy et al., 1999a,b; Lachlan et al., 2010, 2016). Behavioral studies have shown that zebra finches can learn to discriminate songs with different elemental constitutions and even ethologically irrelevant sound sequences (Vernaleo and Dooling, 2011; Fishbein et al., 2020), as well as songs with different sequential arrangements of the same elements (Van Heijningen et al., 2009; Chen and Ten Cate, 2015; Spierings and Ten Cate, 2016; Lawson et al., 2018; Ning et al., 2023). However, whether the sequential arrangement of elements can be used to identify individual zebra finch songs and the neuronal mechanism for detecting element sequences have yet to be clarified.

Lesioning or inactivation of the higher auditory area of the zebra finch, the caudal nidopallium (NCM), in both adult males and females decreases the preference for specific songs (Gobes and Bolhuis, 2007; Canopoli et al., 2014; Tomaszycki and Blaine, 2014; Yu et al., 2023). NCM neurons show stronger auditory responsiveness to conspecific songs than songs of other bird species or tones and distinct responses to experienced songs (Phan et al., 2006; Schneider and Woolley, 2013; Yanagihara and Yazaki-Sugiyama, 2016; Bottjer et al., 2019). One type of NCM neuron, the broader spike (BS) neuron, responds sparsely and selectively to song stimuli (Schneider and Woolley, 2013; Bottjer et al., 2019). Our recent studies have shown the highly selective auditory responsiveness of NCM neurons to experienced tutor songs in juvenile male zebra finches (Yanagihara and Yazaki-Sugiyama, 2016; Katic et al., 2022). Almost half of the BS neuronal populations show frequency-tuned responses (Bottjer et al., 2019), and the auditory responsiveness of BS neurons cannot be explained by response–stimulus functions (Schneider and Woolley, 2013), such as STRF, as the responses of primary auditory areas, such as Field L (Nagel and Doupe, 2008). BS neurons respond sparsely to a subset of songs, but their responses cannot be solely explained by tuning to specific song elements, as some elements that elicit a response alone do not elicit a response in the song context (Schneider and Woolley, 2013).

In the present study, we examined the auditory responsiveness of NCM neurons to songs in adult male zebra finches to understand the neuronal mechanism processing both species common and individual features of songs. We found that NCM neurons exhibited selective responses to species-specific song elements using electrophysiological single-unit recordings in ad libitum moving adult male zebra finches. We further identified neurons sensitive to the sequential arrangement of song elements. The prediction performance of song stimuli from the neuronal response by computational analysis was improved by including the neuronal responses of sequence-selective neurons. Our results suggest a neuronal mechanism underlying the detection of individual song variations with common acoustic features within species.

Materials and Methods

All experimental procedures used in this study were approved by the Animal Care Committee of the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology (OIST) Graduate University under the guidance of the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC).

Animals

Nine adult male zebra finches [Taeniopygia guttata; 189–574 d posthatching (DPH)] hatched and reared in our colony were used for the electrophysiological experiments. We used only adult male zebra finches to investigate the neuronal mechanisms of auditory information processing that affects song learning in males. The birds were reared with their parents to ensure sufficient song learning from the father until they were moved to male-holding cages at ∼70 DPH. All holding and breeding cages were maintained in the same room, allowing the birds to be consistently exposed to conspecific songs produced by a diverse range of individuals.

Song recording and analysis

A total of 230 adult zebra finch songs from our bird colony at the OIST Graduate University (192 songs from 166 males from 76 breeding pairs in our colony and 26 males from commercial sources) and from the Millbrook database (songbirdscience.com by Dr. Ofer Tchernichovski; 38 songs) were analyzed. Genetic information of the male zebra finches from our colony (166 males) is provided in Extended Data Table 1-1. At OIST, adult male zebra finches were individually isolated in a sound attenuation chamber, and the emitted songs were recorded using a lavalier microphone (C417 PP; AKG), digitized at 32 kHz, and saved on a personal computer (PC) using an Avisoft Recorder (Avisoft Bioacoustics). The songs were downloaded from the Millbrook database, recorded with digitization at 44.1 kHz, and resampled at 32.0 kHz using MATLAB (MathWorks). One song from each bird, which included 1–3 introductory notes, followed by two motifs in a single bout with a total duration of 1.5–2.5 s, was selected. The selected songs were segmented into syllables by separating silent gaps longer than 5 ms. The syllables were further segmented into elements by visually inspecting the time points at which the frequency domain of the spectrogram or amplitude domain of the oscillogram abruptly changed. The song elements were high-pass filtered at 450 Hz and normalized in volume by setting the mean root square of the volume of all elements in a song to 50% of the maximum.

Element classification

By visually inspecting the sound spectrograms, we classified the elements of all 230 songs (two motifs per song) into eight types. Elements with similar sound spectrograms were grouped; however, if the total number of elements in a group was <2% of the total number of elements (n = 3,706), then the elements were labeled as unclassifiable. To verify the visual element classification, we extracted eight predefined acoustic features (amplitude, mean frequency, peak frequency, frequency modulation, amplitude modulation, entropy, and duration) using Sound Analysis Pro (MATLAB version; Tchernichovski et al., 2000), whereas 16 unsupervised acoustic features were detected using a variational autoencoder (Kingma and Welling, 2013; Goffinet et al., 2021). The dimension reduction of the acoustic features was performed using t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (t-SNE) to generate scatterplots of the first and second t-SNE components. The visual element classification results were further verified through a comparison with the unsupervised classification results using the k-means clustering algorithm, which was performed by setting the number of clusters to eight and using the 24-dimensional acoustic features. To compare the visual classification results with the results of unsupervised classification using the k-means algorithm, we calculated the clustering performance scores such as the Davies–Bouldin score (Davies and Bouldin, 1979), Calinski–Harabasz score (Caliński and Harabasz, 1974), and silhouette score (Rousseeuw, 1987), with a lower score indicating better clustering for the former and a higher score indicating better clustering for the latter two.

Element transition analysis

We counted the number of elements in 230 songs (two motifs per song), excluding the last element, to determine the general probability of element transitions. The element-to-element transition probability from a given element type was measured by dividing the number of transitions from each element type to a given type, excluding the ones to unclassified elements with the total number of transitions (Fig. 1D). To assess whether the ratio of transition from a given element type to a specific element type occurs in random probability, we performed a permutation test: thousands of random element permutations from the 230 songs were generated, and transition probabilities from one element type to a given type in 1,000 permutations were calculated for use as random transition probabilities. If the probability of transitioning from one element type to a specific type in the 230 songs was <95% of the 1,000 trials, the null hypothesis that transitions from one song element type to a given type were random was rejected.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Zebra finch songs share species-specific elements but differ in terms of the sequential arrangement of these elements. A, Representative spectrograms of the eight element types. B, The mean silhouette score obtained by the k-means clustering of song elements across different cluster numbers. The silhouette scores were quantified with different numbers of clusters ranging from 1 to 20 for 100 iterations, and the scores were averaged. The silhouette score indicates similarities between elements of the same type and those of others. Higher scores indicated more defined clusters. There was a local peak in the mean silhouette score when the number of clusters was eight. C, The percentage of each element type relative to all visually classified elements (2,662 of 3,706 elements from 230 songs). D, The plot of each song element in two-dimensional space with their acoustic features defined as t-SNE Components 1 and 2. The colors of the dots denote the element type. E, The ratio of transitions to each element type from each of the eight element types and the percentage of each element type within all songs, except for the first element in each song (left). F, The percentage of song pairs shared by each element type among all song pairs of 230 songs. One motif per song was used for comparison. G, The normalized percentage of song pairs within each column that share each element type, showing a specific range of sequence similarity (100% represents all song pairs sharing each element type shown in F). Songs with sequence similarities were color coded. t-SNE, t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding. See Extended Data Figure 1-1 for more details.

Figure 1-1

Comparison between the zebra finch song elements from our colony and the Millbrook Library, and song element transitions in genetically unrelated birds, related to Figure 1. A: The percentage of each element type within all visually classified elements from the songs of adult zebra finches hatched and raised in our colony (2,232 elements of 3,070 from 192 songs) (left) and those from the zebra finch songs from the Millbrook Library (430 of 636 from 38 songs) (right). The distribution of element types between songs from our colony and those from the Millbrook Library was significantly different (P = 0.0015, Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test). B: Plot of each song element from the 76 birds, which did not share parental birds in two-dimensional space with their acoustic features defined as t-SNE components 1 and 2. The colors of the dots denote the element type. C: Percentage of song pairs shared by each element type among all song pairs of 76 songs. One motif per song was used for comparison. D: Normalized percentage of song pairs within each column that share each element type, showing a specific range of sequence similarity (100% represents all song pairs sharing each element type shown in C). Songs with sequence similarities were color coded. E: Ratio of transitions to each element type from each of the eight element types and percentage of each element type within all songs, except for the first element in each song (left). t-SNE, t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding. Download Figure 1-1, TIF file.

Table 1-1

Genetical information of birds, songs of which were used for song analysis, related to Figure 1. The same intensity of the color within the birds which shared the father indicates siblings in the same batch. Download Table 1-1, DOCX file.

To assess sequence similarities, we conducted pairwise comparisons between all element pairs in the 230 songs (one motif per song). First, we counted the number of shared element types within each pair of songs. When a pair of songs had two or more shared element types, the sequence similarity between these elements, the ratio of identical element type–element type transitions to the total number of element–element transitions, was calculated.

Experimental design

Song stimuli for electrophysiology recording

A 16-channel movable electrode was implanted in each bird (n = 9) to examine the auditory responsiveness of the NCM neurons. NCM neurons were tested using a song stimulus series comprising 18 adult zebra finch songs to which the birds had not previously been exposed. Eighteen zebra finch songs were selected from the 230 songs used for song analysis to ensure a similar distribution of the t-SNE scatterplots of acoustic features (Extended Data Fig. 2-1). Eighteen zebrafish finches were genetically unrelated. The neurons in all nine birds were also tested with the individual element stimulus series, which comprised 80 song elements (10 elements for each of the eight element types from 7 to 10 songs), and the degressive song stimulus series, which was generated by deleting elements individually from a song. This degressive song stimulus series included individual elements of the same song as well. Six birds were further exposed to a two-element stimulus series comprising pairs of elements. The element to which a neuron responded most strongly in the degressive song stimulus series was preceded by 1 of the 80 individual elements described above. The duration of the silent gap between the two elements was the same as that in the original song. The elements used for stimulation were selected from the 230 songs used for the song analysis. All the stimuli were created using MATLAB R2022b. For the song and degressive song stimulus series, pre- and poststimulus silent periods of the same duration were presented, unless the stimulus was shorter than 1 s. When the duration of the stimulus was <1 s, 1-s-long pre- and poststimulus silent periods were presented with the stimulus. Therefore, 1-s-long pre- and poststimulus silent periods were used for the individual element stimuli and the two-element stimuli series. Each stimulus in a set was played 10 times in a semirandomized order (randomized order within one set of stimuli) using the computer program LabVIEW (LabVIEW 2016; National Instruments) at a volume of ∼75 dB to minimize the effect of head orientation relative to the speaker and birds’ internal conditions, among other variables. However, only the responses to the first five stimuli in the individual- and two-element stimulus sets were analyzed to avoid the effect of habituation.

Surgery

Adult zebra finches were implanted with a movable electrode (single-drive movable microbundles; Innovative Neurophysiology; customized 16-channel tungsten electrodes, 3.5 mm guide cannula, 4 mm drive travel, 0.008″ silver ground wire) into the NCM (0.5 mm lateral and 0.4 mm anterior to the Y-sinus; head angle, 18°) using a stereotaxic apparatus (Narishige). Adult male zebra finches were anesthetized by isoflurane inhalation (0.9–2.5%; 294 ml air flow/min), and the electrode was inserted vertically to an approximate depth of 1.3 mm. The reference electrode was inserted into the space between the skull and the dura in the anterior part of the contralateral hemisphere and fixed to the skull using dental cement (4-META/MMA-TBB resin; Sun Medical). After electrode implantation, the adult zebra finches were housed individually in small cages within the aviary.

Electrophysiological recording

Electrophysiological recordings started 1 d after surgical electrode implantation and lasted 2–45 d (18 ± 12.85 d). The NCM neuronal activity was recorded under free-moving conditions in a sound attenuation chamber (MC-050/CMNB; Muromachi Kikai), inside which was covered with acoustic absorption materials (MiniSonex, Tokyo Bouon Store) to reduce sound reverberation, using the Plexon system (16-channel head stage HST/16o25-GEN2-18P-2GP-G1; Plexon). During the recording of neuronal activity, sound stimuli were generated using a computer code written in LabView and played through a speaker (Art. Number 2041 8 Ω; Visaton) placed on top of the cage. Neuronal activity was amplified, high-pass filtered at 300 Hz, digitized at 40 kHz, recorded along with the timing of the sound stimulation (OmniPlex Neural Recording Data Acquisition System, controlled by Omniplex Server Version 1.18.0; Plexon), and stored on a PC. Once the electrophysiological recordings and primary data analyses were completed for one recording site, the birds were given a short break, food, and water. Subsequently, the electrodes were advanced ∼104 µm deeper for additional recording. Recording sessions lasting 5–8 h per day were performed for 1–3 weeks until the electrodes reached a depth of 3–3.4 mm from the surface, corresponding to the ventral edge of the NCM.

Primary spike sorting was performed immediately after the presentation of the song stimulus series to identify the song that elicited the strongest response in each neuronal unit. Subsequently, the corresponding degressive songs and two-element stimulus series were presented.

Electrophysiological data analysis

Unless otherwise stated, all analyses were performed using MATLAB R2022b.

Spike sorting

Spike sorting was performed off-line by combining the recorded data with different sound stimulus series (Offline Sorter version 3.3.5; PlexUtil, Plexon). Neuronal unit activities were first detected with a threshold five times higher than the baseline, and the units were sorted using the Valley-Seek sorting algorithm and further visual inspection of their principal component analysis (PCA) waveform components. Only distinct clusters that showed consistent spike shapes throughout the recording period were considered single units and further analyzed for responsiveness to sound stimuli.

Quantification of neural responses to sound stimuli

For the song and digressive song stimulus series, NCM neural units were considered responsive to a song stimulus if their firing rates during a song stimulus were significantly higher than those during the baseline period (the same duration period just before a song stimulus) in the one-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test (p < 0.05; Schneider and Woolley, 2013; Yanagihara and Yazaki-Sugiyama, 2016). For the individual element stimulus series, if the firing rates for 250 ms from the onset of an individual element stimulus were significantly higher than those in the baseline period (the 250 ms period before the stimulus) in the one-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test (p < 0.05), then the units were considered to be responsive to an element stimulus. The 250 ms window size was determined as the length of elements we presented, and the spike latencies of NCM BS neuronal units ranged from 24 to 179 ms and from 40 to 150 ms [86.8 ± 24.5 ms; mean ± standard deviation (SD)], respectively (Levakova et al., 2015).

Effect of sequential element arrangement

The effects of the sequential element arrangement were measured using NCM neuronal responses to a two-element stimulus series. The sequence effect values were calculated using the following formula:SequenceEffect=RSAB−(RSA+RSB)|RSAB|+|RSA+RSB|, where RSA and RSB are the response strength (RS; firing rates during stimulation subtracted by firing rates during the same duration of baseline period) to the given elements “A” and “B” presented individually, respectively, and RSAB is RS to elements “A and B” presented in a sequence. To calculate the RS, we used a 500 ms time window from the beginning of Element A for the stimuli “AB” and a 250 ms window from the beginning of Element A or B for the “A” or “B” stimulus, respectively. If the sequence effect values, which ranged from −1 to 1, were higher than 0.5 or lower than −0.5, they were considered to have positive and negative effects on the sequential arrangement of elements in their response, respectively.

Quantification of selectiveness for element types

We calculated the d′ value between the two element types to quantify the selectivity of neuronal responses (Solis and Doupe, 1997; Bauer et al., 2008). As we presented 10 elements for each element type, the d′ values between two element types were calculated by the following formula:d′a−b=2(RSa¯−RSb¯)σa2+σb2, where RS is the mean of the mean RS for each of 10 element stimuli (mean for 10 iterations) of a given element type (a or b, RSa¯ represents the mean of the mean RS of 10 element stimuli) and σ2 is the variance of the mean RS for 10 element stimuli for each element type. Neuronal units that showed d′ values >0.5 between a given element type and all other element types were considered selective for that element type.

Naive Bayesian decoder and decoder-based song prediction

A naive Gaussian Bayesian decoder algorithm (Python, GaussianNB from sklearn.naive_bayes) was used to generate confusion matrices of predicted song stimuli versus actual song stimuli and to quantify the accuracy of decoding song stimuli in NCM neuronal ensembles from neural responses (RS; Robotka et al., 2023). To examine and predict the discriminability of song stimuli in the NCM neuronal ensemble, we used the RS to train the decoder using 18 song stimuli of 1–250 randomly selected neurons from the 386 responsive BS neurons using the Python (Python Software Foundation) function np.random.choice. For each ensemble size, 100 neuronal ensembles were formed by random neuron selection. In each ensemble, a neuron was selected only once, and the RS of each neuron for each song stimulus was calculated separately for each stimulus presentation trial (18 songs × 10 trials × number of neurons). Next, PCA was applied to reduce data dimensionality while retaining at least 95% of the data variance. The naive Gaussian decoder was trained and tested by the “leave-one-out” method to determine the decoder performance, where the decoder was trained with the entire dataset except one and the decoder performance was tested with the excluded set. This process was repeated for all datasets [180 times, excluding one for testing out of 180 (18 songs × 10 trials) datasets for each time] and calculated the performance accuracy as the percentage of correct prediction. This process was repeated for all 100 ensembles. The average prediction accuracy over 100 repetitions was presented as the accuracy of the ensemble size. Confusion matrices were generated to illustrate the percentage of correct predictions for each of the 18 song stimuli for each ensemble size.

To observe the effect of sequential arrangement-sensitive or nonsensitive neurons, we selected neurons from 20 sequential arrangement-sensitive BS neurons or 21 sequential arrangement-insensitive neurons, respectively. One to fifteen neurons were randomly selected from the 20 sensitive or 21 insensitive neurons using the Python function np.random.choice. As described previously, 100 trials were performed for each ensemble size, and the decoder accuracies were averaged. For sequence-selective neurons, those that showed increased, decreased, or increased and decreased responses upon element deletion were included in the random selection. Within 100 trials of each ensemble size, the probability of selecting the same neuron combination was estimated using the following formula:P=1–[(1–1/ensemblesize)100+100×(1/num_combinations)×(1–1/num_combinations)99].

Histology

Electrical lesions were made to verify the electrode locations by passing a 10 mA current using an iontophoresis pump (BAB-501; Kation Scientific) to Channels 1, 4, 8, and 16 of the electrodes when they were at the deepest location for 20 s. Thirty minutes after electric lesioning, birds were perfused with saline followed by 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA) in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). The brains and skulls, including the electrodes, were postfixed in 4% PFA at 4°C overnight. The electrodes were then completely withdrawn from the cannula and removed from the brain. The brains were extracted from the skull, cryoprotected in 30% sucrose in PBS until they sank, flash-frozen on powdered dry ice, and stored at −80°C until they were cut into sections for Nissl staining.

Brain sections were cut to a thickness of 50 µm, mounted on glass slides, and stained with cresyl violet (0.1%; Sigma-Aldrich). The brain sections were examined and imaged under a microscope (EVOS M7000, AMF7000, Thermo Fisher Scientific) to verify the locations and tracks of the electrodes histologically. The recording sites were estimated according to the lesion location. Neuronal units recorded outside the NCM were excluded from the analysis.

Statistical analysis

The mean ± standard error of mean was provided where specified (N represents the number of birds). Individual data are plotted where applicable. Details of the statistical analyses are provided in the respective sections. Descriptive statistics can be found in the figure legends and Results.

Results

Zebra finch songs consist of common elements but have individually unique element sequential arrangements

Zebra finches discriminate individually unique songs (Zann, 1996, 1993a,b; Elie and Theunissen, 2016). Both sexes show a preference for the songs of their own species over those of other species in song-selecting behaviors (Clayton and Pröve, 1989; Clayton, 1990; Braaten and Reynolds, 1999), and male zebra finches preferentially learn from tutors of the same species rather than from heterospecific tutors (Clayton, 1988). Zebra finch songs consist of repetitions of a unique motif, composed of several song elements arranged in stereotypical sequences. To examine the song diversity of zebra finch and how they manage to implement both individual uniqueness and common conspecifics features in their songs, we investigated the elements in song motifs of 192 adult male zebra finches that were hatched and raised in our colony (166 males from 76 breeding pairs, Extended Data Table 1-1) or purchased from commercial sources and raised in our colony (26 males), as well as 38 zebra finch songs from the Millbrook Library [Tchernichovski et al., 2021; in total, 3,706 song elements, 3–19 (8.06 ± 2.83, mean ± SD) elements/song]. Here, we defined the elements as the smallest unit of songs separated by silent gaps and rapid changes in vocal gestures, as previously reported (including combination elements), or as notes (Scharff and Nottebohm, 1991; Zann, 1993a,b; Sturdy et al., 1999a,b; Schneider and Woolley, 2013; Lachlan et al., 2016). We classified song elements into eight types based on a visual inspection of their sound spectrograms, as described in previous publications (Fig. 1A). Previous studies have identified five to fourteen elements by visually inspecting sound spectrographs (Zann, 1993a; Sturdy et al., 1999a,b; Lachlan et al., 2016; James and Sakata, 2017). By applying k-means clustering, an unsupervised clustering algorithm, with different cluster numbers ranging from two to 20, we identified a local peak at k = 8 within the number of element types identified in the previous studies (5–14) in the silhouette score, which is a metric of intracluster relative to intercluster similarity (Fig. 1B); we classified the song elements into eight types. We then identified most of the 3,706 elements (71.8%; 2,662/3,706) as one of the eight types (Fig. 1A,C). While we found all the eight element types in the songs from Millbrook Library, the distribution of element types between songs from our colony and those from the Millbrook Library was significantly different (p = 0.0015; Kolmogorov–Smirnov test; Extended Data Fig. 1-1). To validate our visual classification of song element types, we extracted the acoustic features of the 2,662 identified song elements, applied t-SNE dimension reduction, and visualized them in a two-dimensional space (Fig. 1D). All song elements which were classified as the same type by visual inspection, except for those classified as Type 7, were clustered with a slight overlap with the other types. We also compared the classifications based on visual inspection with those obtained by k-means clustering (k = 8). We discovered that 72% of the visually classifiable elements were grouped into the same clusters by k-means clustering. To further validate our visual classification, we compared the visual classification with the k-means classification by computing multiple clustering performance values, including the silhouette coefficient (Rousseeuw, 1987; visual, 0.119; k-means, 0.143), Davies–Bouldin score (Davies and Bouldin, 1979; visual, 2.27; k-means: 1.82), and Calinski–Harabasz score (Caliński and Harabasz, 1974; visual, 215; k-means, 286). All the values indicate that our visual classification exhibited a clustering performance comparable with that of the k-means algorithm. These results suggest that the songs of the zebra finches in our colony consisted of species-specific song elements with similar acoustic structures as previously reported (Zann, 1993a; Lachlan et al., 2010, 2016).

Next, we investigated the sequential arrangement of song elements by examining the element-to-element transitions between two consecutive song elements. The same sets of song elements can form different song motifs with distinct element sequential arrangements. We found that the percentage of transitions from a given song element type to a specific element type was not different from that of randomized element transitions made with the same elements from the 230 songs (permutation test, p > 0.05) for most element transitions (51/64; 79.7%; Fig. 1E), although there was a higher probability of repeats of the same element type (Types 2, 3, and 6). This suggests that there were no specific sequential element arrangements in the zebra finch songs of our colony, although small trends were observed. We further assessed similarities in the element sequential arrangement among all pairs of the 230 songs by comparing the sequences of the shared song element types. We subsequently found that the majority (73.1%) of the song pairs shared two or more types of song elements (Fig. 1F). In contrast, only 8.46% of those song pairs showed identical sequential arrangements of shared element types (Fig. 1G). The mean element type sequential similarity was significantly higher than the random similarity between song pairs sharing two or three element types (p = 0.003 and 0.036 for song pairs with two and three shared element types, respectively, in the permutation test), whereas between song pairs sharing four to nine element types, sequential similarity was not different from random similarity (p = 0.250, 0.214, 0.598, 0.109, 0.868, and 0.691 for song pairs with four, five, six, seven, eight, and nine shared element types, respectively, in the permutation test). We further calculated the percentage of element transitions and shared element sequential arrangements only within the birds that did not share breeding parents (76 males, one bird from each of the 76 breeding pairs in our colony), to avoid possible effects of song learning on sequence transitions. Notably, some fractions of genetically related individuals exist in natural colonies. Comparable fractions of the 1,164 elements from 76 songs were classified as one of the eight types by visual inspection (69.2%; 805/1,164; Extended Data Fig. 1-1B). We further confirmed that most of the possible song pairs (64.5%) among the 76 songs from unrelated birds shared two or more element types (Extended Data Fig. 1-1C), whereas only 8.67% of the song pairs showed identical sequential arrangements of shared element types (Extended Data Fig. 1-1D). The mean element type sequential similarity was not significantly higher than the random similarity between the song pairs that shared 2–8 (no songs shared nine element types) element types (0.063, 0.267, 0.196, 0.375, 0.999, 0.079, and 0.883 for song pairs with two, three, four, five, six, seven, and eight shared element types, respectively, in the permutation test; Extended Data Fig. 1-1E), as we found in all songs analyzed, including the siblings (Fig. 1D–G). While zebra finch juvenile males tend to learn specific element sequences when they are provided with only a few elements during song playback (James and Sakata, 2017), they cause variations in songs by combining or splitting elements and modifying the sequence of elements (Böhner, 1983), as well as incorporating new elements (Tchernichovski et al., 2021) when learning from tutors under natural conditions. Together with our observation of higher element type sequential similarity in bird pairs that shared only a small number of element types from the bird population, those suggest local sequential rules within a small number of element combinations while random syllable sequences in a song. These findings suggest that zebra finch songs share common song element types with similar acoustic features but are individually distinct in their sequential arrangements.

NCM neurons act collectively as a neuronal ensemble to detect zebra finch song libraries

Lesioning or inactivation of the NCM disrupts song discrimination abilities in adult male zebra finches (Bolhuis and Gahr, 2006; Gobes and Bolhuis, 2007; Canopoli et al., 2014) and decreases song preference in adult females (Tomaszycki and Blaine, 2014), suggesting that the NCM is necessary for individual song-discriminating behavior. Previous electrophysiological studies have shown selective auditory responses to specific songs in the NCM BS neurons (Schneider and Woolley, 2013; Bottjer et al., 2019). We performed single-unit electrophysiological recordings of the NCM in freely-moving adult male zebra finches to determine how NCM neurons respond individually to different zebra finch songs (Fig. 2A). We recorded NCM neurons and probed them with 18 zebra finch songs, termed the song stimulus series, to which the birds had not been previously exposed (see Materials and Methods). The elements of 18 songs were distributed to cover variations in the acoustic features of the song elements found in our previous analysis of 230 songs from our colony and the Millbrook Library (Extended Data Fig. 2-1). Overall, we found that 480 NCM neurons from nine birds [26–107 neurons/bird; 53.3 ± 28.6 (mean ± SD)] responded to at least 1 of the 18 zebra finch songs in the song stimulus series (68.8% of all 698 recorded neurons). Consistent with previous reports (Schneider and Woolley, 2013; Yanagihara and Yazaki-Sugiyama, 2016; Bottjer et al., 2019; Katic et al., 2022), we identified two types of neurons that were distinct in spike shapes and firing rates in the NCM, i.e., BS [n = 388 (80.8%); spike width, 0.43 ± 0.05; spontaneous firing rate, 0.94 ± 1.17 spikes/s; mean ± SD] and narrow-spiking (NS; n = 92 (19.2%); spike width, 0.22 ± 0.03; spontaneous firing rate, 8.51 ± 6.38) neurons (Fig. 2B,C). As reported in previous studies (Schneider and Woolley, 2013; Yanagihara and Yazaki-Sugiyama, 2016; Bottjer et al., 2019; Katic et al., 2022), each BS neuron responded to a small subset of songs in the song stimulus series [4.90 ± 4.15 songs (mean ± SD)], while NS neurons responded to most of the 18 songs [12.4 ± 5.67 (mean ± SD); Fig. 2D]. We found that a group of BS neurons recorded from a single bird as an ensemble (18–92 BS neurons/bird) responded to all 18 songs in the song stimulus series. In contrast, each of the 18 songs elicited responses from different combinations of the NCM BS neurons recorded from a single bird (Fig. 2E,F). This suggests that NCM neurons in birds discriminate individually different songs as an ensemble rather than representing individual songs with a small subset of neurons, allowing the NCM to discriminate an almost unlimited number of songs. When probing birds with a tutor's songs (TS), we found that the proportion of neurons selective for TS was not different from that of neurons selective for other songs (Fig. 2G), in contrast to the proportions of TS-selective neurons found in juvenile birds (Yanagihara and Yazaki-Sugiyama, 2016; Katic et al., 2022). To avoid the effects of experience, we further analyzed the responses to 18 zebra finch songs to which birds had never been exposed previously. To test whether the NCM discriminates individual songs as a neuronal ensemble, we trained the naive Bayes decoder with RS to the song stimulus series of different numbers of BS neurons (1–250) and tested whether the decoder predicted the song stimulus correctly (Robotka et al., 2023; Fig. 3A). The prediction accuracy was measured as the percentage of correct predictions in 100 trials (ensembles). We repeated the training of the decoder and predicted song stimuli using different numbers of neurons (ensemble size). We found that single neurons were insufficient for reliable stimulus prediction, and prediction accuracy improved by increasing the number of neurons, reaching almost 95% with 250 neurons (Fig. 3B,C). The prediction accuracies were better when we trained the decoder with the RS of NS neurons or combinations of NS and BS neurons (4:1, 1:1, or 1:4 ratio), probably owing to the NS neurons’ higher RS (firing rate; Fig. 3D). NS neurons are local inhibitory neurons that modulate the responses of BS neurons, which are excitatory projection neurons (Bottjer et al., 2019; Spool et al., 2021). This suggests that NCM can perform song discrimination as an ensemble of BS neurons (Fig. 3B,C) with local inhibitory inputs from NS neurons.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Individual NCM BS neurons respond to a small subset of zebra finch songs but respond to all as an ensemble. A, The diagram of sagittal section of the zebra finch brain shows the NCM (left) and a Nissl-stained image of a zebra finch brain in which NCM neurons were electrophysiologically recorded (right). The dashed square indicates the electrode track, and the arrowhead indicates the electrical lesion created after the electrophysiological recording. B, Representative sound spectrograms of a song stimulus (top) and time-aligned raster plots of the responses of NS (left) and BS (right) neurons (bottom). C, The spontaneous firing rates against the spike width of each NCM neuron; the spike widths of NS and BS neurons are distinct and separated at 0.3 ms (BS, spike width, 0.43 ± 0.05; spontaneous firing rate, 0.94 ± 1.17 spikes/s; mean ± SD; NS, spike width, 0.22 ± 0.03; spontaneous firing rate, 8.51 ± 6.38). D, The number of NS (left) and BS (right) neurons responding to each song in the song stimulus series. E, Responses of NS and BS neurons recorded in a single bird to each of the 18 songs in the song stimulus series. The filled boxes denote neurons that showed significantly positive responses. Different combinations of BS neurons respond to each song. F, The normalized percentage of BS neurons responsive to each song stimulus in each bird. A unique combination of colors and patterns represents each song stimulus. All 18 songs elicited responses from at least one neuron in all the birds. G, proportion of neurons showing selective responses to each song stimulus in the song stimulus series and each bird tutor's song. The proportion of tutor's song-selective neurons showed no significant difference between the selective and other song stimuli. See Extended Data Figure 2-1 for more details.

Figure 2-1

Elements of song stimuli, related to Figure 2. The t-SNE distribution of song elements from 18 representative songs and those related to Figures 1D and 2. t-SNE, t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding. Download Figure 2-1, TIF file.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Song stimulus prediction from the RS of BS neurons using the Bayesian decoder. A, Process of song stimulus prediction using the Bayesian decoder. B, Prediction performance for song stimulus identity using a naive Bayesian decoder trained with neuronal responses of 1, 100, or 250 neurons. Neurons were randomly selected from the 386 song-responsive BS neurons and averaged across 100 replicates. Each block indicates the percentage of a specific song (actual song ID) within the number of songs predicted as a specific song (predicted song ID), presented as a heatmap. Correct predictions are indicated on a diagonal line in the matrix. C, Prediction accuracies of the naive Bayesian decoder as a function of the number of neurons, ranging from 1 to 250, were used to train the decoder with their responses (average over 100 trials). The dotted line corresponds to the heat map shown in B. D, Prediction accuracies of the naive Bayesian decoder as a function of the number of neurons when the decoder was trained with the response only of BS neurons and the number of BS and NS neurons was 4:1, 1:1, and 1:4 or only with NS neurons. NCM, caudal nidopallium; NS, narrower spike; BS, broader spike; SD, standard deviation.

Element type-selective BS neurons

Previous studies have reported that BS neurons in the NCM respond to the playback of single-song elements (Schneider and Woolley, 2013). We also found that BS neurons respond to specific parts of song stimuli, in contrast to NS neurons, which respond to the entire period of song stimuli (Fig. 2B), as previously reported (Schneider and Woolley, 2013; Yanagihara and Yazaki-Sugiyama, 2016; Bottjer et al., 2019), while response selectivity could differ due to recording conditions (e.g., anesthetized/awake, head restrained/free moving), as suggested in studies on cortical neurons of mammals and birds (Gaese and Ostwald, 2001; Karino et al., 2016). To investigate the correspondence of BS neuronal responses to song elements and songs, we further probed 73 of the 388 song-responsive BS neurons from nine birds with 80 single-song elements, 10 elements of each of the eight types derived from 7 to 10 zebra finch songs (Fig. 4A). We found that 61 of the 73 neurons responded to at least one song element [5.66 ± 5.21 elements (mean ± SD); Fig. 4B]. We further assessed whether these neurons showed selective responses to specific element types by calculating the d′ value between the responses to the two element types using the average RS to 10 song elements of the same type. Slightly more than half (54.1%; 33/61) of the element-responsive neurons were selective to a specific type of song element, as indicated by d′ values higher than 0.5, for a specific element type in all comparisons with other element types (corresponding to RS to a specific type of element being more than twice that of any other element type; Fig. 4C,D). We further found selective neurons for all element types except for element Types 7 and 8 (Fig. 4C). The remaining BS neurons tended to respond, but not significantly, to a smaller number of song elements that were not of the same type (half responded to fewer than four elements) than the element type-selective neurons (Fig. 4E), suggesting that they were selective for specific elements rather than element types. We found that the RS to elements of the same type varied in each element-responsive neuron, especially in nonselective neurons (Fig. 4B). As the RS was the average of 10 trials of the same stimulation, which were presented in a semirandom order, NCM BS neurons are suggested to be sensitive not only to the acoustical features we used to define element types but also to other information, such as temporal patterns or envelopes, rather than response variation occurred due to differences in the birds’ head orientation to the speaker or internal conditions. Spike shapes and spontaneous firing rates of element type-selective and nonselective neurons did not differ (Fig. 4F,G).

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

Element type-selective neurons. A, Sound spectrographs of a representative element of each type (top) and raster plots of a BS neuron's neuronal response (bottom) to these stimuli. B, Responses to 80 elements of each type-selective (top, n = 33, 54.1%) and nonselective neurons (bottom, n = 28, 45.9%). C, A pie chart showing the percentage of neurons selected for each element type. BS, broader spike. D, Plots of d′ values for each element-type stimulus in element-selective neurons (left) and in element-nonselective neurons (right). E, Box plots (box, 1st and 3rd quartiles; vertical bars, 5th and 95th percentiles; horizontal line, median; square, mean) of the number of song elements to which element type-selective (n = 33) and nonselective (n = 28) neurons responded. Element type-selective neurons tended to respond to a greater number of song elements than nonselective neurons, although the difference was not significant (selective, 6.70 ± 5.50; nonselective, 4.43 ± 4.65; mean ± SD; Mann–Whitney U test; p < 0.05). Each dot denotes data from an individual neuron. F, Box plots (box, 1st and 3rd quartiles; vertical bars, 5th and 95th percentiles; horizontal line, median; square, mean) of the spontaneous firing rates of element type-selective (n = 33) and nonselective (n = 28) neurons, which were not significantly different (selective, 0.81 ± 0.70 spikes/s; nonselective, 0.46 ± 0.27 spikes/s; Mann–Whitney U test; p < 0.01). G, Box plots (box, 1st and 3rd quartiles; vertical bars, 5th and 95th percentiles; horizontal line, median; square, mean) of the spike width of element type-selective (n = 33) and nonselective (n = 28) neurons, which were not significantly different (selective, 0.41 ± 0.06 ms; nonselective, 0.43 ± 0.04 ms; mean ± SD; Mann–Whitney U test; p < 0.05). SD, standard deviation.

Element sequence-sensitive neurons

As we found that BS neurons responded to specific song elements, we investigated whether specific elements caused BS neuronal responses to a song by probing another subset (n = 41) of 388 song-responsive BS neurons with a degressive song stimulus series. The degressive song series was created by deleting song elements one-by-one from the songs to which a neuron showed the strongest response in the song stimulus series and the individual elements of that song (Fig. 5A). We found that most BS neurons (39/41) responded to at least one of the individual song elements and responded most robustly to the individual elements when presented alone. The other two neurons responded only to a sequence of two elements with no gaps, suggesting they responded to a syllable (Extended Data Fig. 5-1A,B). BS neurons responded to a significantly greater number of elements when presented individually than in a song (Fig. 6A). To further examine the effect of a preceding element on neuronal responses to a specific element, we selected neurons that responded to a specific element but not to the preceding element in a song when it was presented individually. We subsequently analyzed the effect of the preceding element (n = 41). Some neurons showed increased (n = 10; Fig. 5B) or decreased (n = 5; Fig. 5C) responses to a specific element when presented without a preceding element. Interestingly, some neurons (n = 5) showed responsiveness to an element when the preceding element was deleted and decreased responses to that element by deleting another preceding element (Fig. 6D; Extended Data Fig. 5-1A). Those suggested that these neurons are sensitive to sequential elemental arrangements. The RS of the remaining 21 neurons did not change, with or without the preceding elements (Fig. 5D). Some neurons exhibited an altered response to a specific song element when the preceding element, which in these cases was a subsyllable, was deleted (Extended Data Fig. 5-1). There were no differences in spike shapes or firing rates between neurons that altered their responses to a specific song element when presented without the preceding element and those that did not (Fig. 6B,C). Next, to test whether the responses of element sequence-sensitive neurons increased the song discrimination ability of the NCM neuronal ensembles, we trained the naive Bayes decoder with the RS of sequence-sensitive or nonsensitive neuronal ensembles with different numbers of neurons ranging from 1 to 15 (100 random neuronal responses per neuron number). We found that the prediction accuracies modeled with the responses of a single neuron between sequence-sensitive and nonsensitive neurons were not significantly different (p = 0.89; Mann–Whitney U test). However, neuronal ensembles with more than two sequence-sensitive neurons showed significantly higher prediction accuracy than ensembles with the same number of nonsensitive neurons (p < 0.01, Mann–Whitney U test). The difference in prediction accuracy between the ensembles of sensitive and nonsensitive neurons gradually increased as the number of neurons in the ensembles increased (Fig. 6E,F). The prediction accuracy reached 60% with 15 sequence-sensitive neurons (Fig. 6F). In contrast, responses from 50 BS neurons (which were thought to include both sequence-selective and nonselective neurons) or >20 NS neurons were needed to train the decoder to reach the same level of accuracy (Fig. 3D), suggesting neuronal response of sequence-sensitive neurons helps to increase the accuracy of song discrimination and decreases the number of neurons in an ensemble required for discriminating songs.

Figure 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 5.

Subsets of BS neurons are sensitive to element arrangements. A, Schematic of the degressive song stimulus series. The degressive song stimulus series was created by individually deleting song elements from a song in the song stimulus series, to which each neuron exhibited the strongest response. The individual elements of the song are also presented. B–D, Representative neurons showing an increased (B) or decreased (C) response or no change in response (D) to an element of a song stimulus after deletion of the preceding element. Sound spectrograms (top) of the song stimuli (left), corresponding degressive song stimuli (middle), and individual elements (right) in addition to raster plots of neuronal responses (bottom) to each stimulus. See Extended Data Figure 5-1 for more details.

Figure 5-1

Responses to the degressive song stimulus series, related to Figure 5. A: A representative neuron that increased responses to a specific element “H” when the preceding element “F” was deleted but decreased responses to the element “H” when the additional preceding element “G” was deleted. Sound spectrograms (top) of a song (left), corresponding degressive song stimulus series (middle), individual elements (right), and raster plots of neuronal responses (bottom). B and C: Representative neurons with increased (B) or decreased (C) responses to song stimuli when the preceding element, a subsyllable, was deleted. Sound spectrograms (top) of a song (left) and the corresponding individual degressive songs (middle), elements (right), and neuronal response raster plots (bottom). Download Figure 5-1, TIF file.

Figure 6.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 6.

Properties of element sequence-sensitive neurons and song stimulus prediction with element sequence-sensitive neuronal response. A, The number of elements eliciting responses when presented individually in a song; the NCM neurons responded to a significantly smaller number of elements when they were presented as a song than when they were presented individually (song, 2.42 ± 0.89; individual, 3.42 ± 2.35; mean ± SD; Mann–Whitney U test; p < 0.01). The number of responsive elements in a song was estimated using the number of local maxima of the spike rate functions. The spike rate function was calculated by binning the spike number in a 10 ms time window and smoothing with a 50 ms Gaussian window. Subsequently, the number of local maxima on the spike rate function, which was more than two standard deviations (2σ) above the mean of the prestimulus baseline, was counted. For individual element presentation, significantly higher firing rates in the 250 ms time window from the stimulus onset than in the baseline (the same length of time window before stimulus onset) by the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (p < 0.05) was considered a positive response. B, Box plots (box, 1st and 3rd quartiles; vertical bars, 5th and 95th percentiles; horizontal line, median; square, mean) of the spike widths of neurons that did or did not change their responses to a specific element when the preceding element was deleted. The spike widths did not differ significantly between neurons with and without altered responses. C, Box plots (box, 1st and 3rd quartiles; vertical bars, 5th and 95th percentiles; horizontal line, median; square, mean) of spontaneous firing rates of neurons that did or did not change their responses to a specific element when the preceding element was deleted. NCM, caudal nidopallium; SD, standard deviation. D, The pie chart of the percentage of BS neurons that showed an increase, decrease, both an increase and decrease, or no change in response when a specific element was presented with the preceding element. E, Confusion matrices of prediction accuracy by the naive Bayesian decoder trained with the neuronal responses of one (left) or 15 (right) sequence-selective (top) or nonselective (bottom) neurons. Neurons were randomly sampled from 20 (selective) or 21 (nonselective) neurons, and the results were averaged across 100 trials. Each block indicates the percentage of a specific song (actual song ID) within the number of songs predicted by the song (predicted song ID), as shown in the heatmap (average over 100 trials). Correct predictions are indicated on a diagonal line in the matrix. F, Prediction accuracies of the naive Bayesian decoder as a function of the number of sequence-sensitive or nonsensitive neurons, ranging from 1 to 15, used to train the decoder with their responses (average over 100 trials). The dotted line corresponds to the heat map shown in E. BS, broader spike.

When zebra finch males learn to sing from tutors, they incorporate new elements (Tchernichovski et al., 2021) besides splitting or merging existing song elements and learning chunks of tutor elements (Williams and Staples, 1992; Tchernichovski and Mitra, 2002). To further investigate the effect of sensitivity to sequential element arrangements in NCM neurons, especially if the selectivity was to combinations of specific elements or specific types of elements, we probed another subset of BS neurons (n = 15) with song elements, to which these neurons exhibited the strongest response when the elements were presented in a song, combined with a preceding element (10 elements for each of the eight types) while maintaining the length of the gap between the elements (two-element stimulus series; Fig. 7A). We found that most neurons (13/15) showed increased or decreased responses when presented with at least 1 of the 80 preceding elements [1–39; 14.4 ± 11.8 elements (mean ± SD); Fig. 7B,C]. Eight neurons exhibited decreased responses to the song element when presented with the preceding element. The number of preceding elements that decreased the responses varied between neurons (1–22; 8.13 ± 7.74). The preceding elements that decreased the responses to a specific element were not the same type (Fig. 7C). The other five neurons showed increased or decreased responses to a specific element depending on the preceding element. The preceding elements that caused either an increase or decrease in the response to a specific element were not the same type. Four of these five neurons showed an increase and decrease in response to a specific element based on the preceding elements, whereas they were of the same type (Extended Data Fig. 7-1). The remaining two neurons did not change their responses to a specific element when presented with any of the 80 preceding elements. These findings suggest that responses to element sequences are not depending on the combination of element types but based on particular element combinations. There were no differences in firing rates or spike waveforms between neurons that changed their responses with the preceding elements and those that did not (Fig. 7D).

Figure 7.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 7.

BS neurons show altered responses to a song element when presented in sequence with another element. A, Schematic diagram of two-element stimuli. B, Sound spectrographs of an element (top) and the corresponding two-element (bottom) stimulus and raster plots of the neuronal responses (bottom) that showed no change (left), an increase (middle), or a decrease (right) in their responses when the element was presented with a preceding element (two-element stimuli). C, Color matrix of changes in neuronal responses when an element is presented with a preceding element. The filled boxes denote neurons with increased (orange) or decreased (blue) responses. See Extended Data Figure 5-1 for more details. BS, broader spike. D, Box plots (box, 1st and 3rd quartiles; vertical bars, 5th and 95th percentiles; horizontal line, median; square, mean) of the spike width (left) and spontaneous firing rate (right) of neurons that did or did not change their responses to a specific element when presented with a preceding element. Each dot denotes the data from an individual neuron. There were no significant differences in either the spike width or the spontaneous firing rate between neurons that altered responses when presented with a preceding element and those that did not (spike width, change, 0.39 ± 0.07 ms; unchanged response, 0.46 ± 0.04 ms; spontaneous firing rate, change, 0.83 ± 0.60 spikes/s; no change, 0.50 ± 0.36 ms; mean ± SD; Mann–Whitney U test; p < 0.05). SD, standard deviation. See Extended Data Figure 7-1 for more details.

Figure 7-1

Response to the two-element stimulus series, related to Figure 7. Sound spectrographs of individual elements, corresponding two-element stimuli (top), and raster plots of representative neuronal responses (bottom). Neurons increased (middle), decreased (right), or did not change (left) their responses to a specific element (middle row), based on the preceding element presented together when they were of the same type. Download Figure 7-1, TIF file.

Discussion

Besides the NCM neuronal populations that respond to specific acoustic features or song elements (Schneider and Woolley, 2013; Bottjer et al., 2019), here, we discovered neuronal populations, especially of BS neurons, that respond to the sequential arrangement of song elements in the zebra finch's higher auditory cortex (NCM). We previously showed that subsets of BS neurons are highly selective for experienced tutors’ songs, suggesting they are involved in song discrimination. As we found here that each NCM BS neuron responded to only a small subset of zebra finch songs, especially to specific song elements, while the NCM BS neuronal ensembles recorded from one bird responded to all presented songs, we focused on BS neurons to investigate the neuronal mechanism for individual song discrimination. Sensitivity to element sequence arrangements in NCM neuronal responses increased the prediction accuracy of the song stimulus identity of the naive Bayes decoder, which trained the auditory responses of NCM neuronal ensembles, suggesting that this is the neuronal mechanism underlying the detection of individual differences among songs.

Various studies have reported that different zebra finch songs share acoustically similar song elements (Zann, 1993a; Sturdy et al., 1999a,b; Lachlan et al., 2010, 2016). Zebra finches also show a preference for songs of their own species over songs of others (Clayton, 1988; Braaten and Reynolds, 1999). A previous study also reported greater acoustic similarity between song elements to which the same NCM neurons responded than between pairs of randomly chosen elements (Schneider and Woolley, 2013). We found that the song elements of zebra finches in our colony could be classified into several common types based on their acoustic structures. We further revealed that subsets of neurons responded selectively to a specific type of element. In the human auditory cortex, neurons recorded in each electrocorticography channel exhibit selective responses to specific features of language (Mesgarani, et al., 2014). Coding-specific features in a subset of neurons and detecting variations in neuronal ensembles may be common neuronal mechanisms involved in vocal communication. The existence of common acoustic features within species also aids in coding species identities in songs.

In addition to identifying vocalizations produced by their own species, zebra finches discriminate between individual zebra finch songs. Acoustically similar song elements are shared among different birds but differ in their sequential arrangement (Böhner, 1983; Lachlan et al., 2016). Moreover, zebra finches can detect differences in the sequential arrangement of elements, even between motif renditions (Fishbein et al., 2021; Ning et al., 2023) and individually unique song elements (Van Heijningen et al., 2009; Chen and Ten Cate, 2015; Spierings and Ten Cate, 2016; Lawson et al., 2018). In the premotor area of the song system, the HVC of zebra finches, most neurons show highly selective responses to their own songs (Margoliash, 1983, 1986; Margoliash and Fortune, 1992; Theunissen and Doupe, 1998; Mooney, 2000); this contrasts with the NCM, where we found that each neuron responded to a small subset of conspecific songs. Syllable sequence-selective responses in the HVC neurons have also been reported (Margoliash and Fortune, 1992; Lewicki and Konishi, 1995; Theunissen and Doupe, 1998).

Neurons in the higher auditory area, NCM, and caudomedial mesopallium are reportedly involved in individual song (Gobes and Bolhuis, 2007) and species recognition (Bailey et al., 2002). Inactivation of the NCM disrupts individual song recognition but not female/male call discrimination, which includes little or no sequential arrangement of elements (Gobes and Bolhuis, 2007). The sequential arrangement of elements increases the capacity for individual variation in songs and the ability of neuronal circuits to decode the individual uniqueness of a song. These findings suggest that element sequence-selective auditory responses in the NCM are involved in song-discriminating behavior. A neuronal population coding for facial recognition with hundreds of neurons, each responding to specific facial features, has been reported in the primate brain (Chang and Tsao, 2017). However, the response specificity for faces has been reported to be poor (Vinken et al., 2023). Further studies, including neuropopulation recordings and modeling, are required to elucidate the specific discrimination of various songs in the zebra finch brain.

Recognizing individual variation parallel to species identity is important for zebra finch vocal communication. Our previous study demonstrated parallel information processing for complementary temporal and acoustic features of songs by two distinct neuronal populations in the zebra finch primary auditory forebrain area, Field L (Araki et al., 2016). The detection of different features in a signal by distinct populations of neurons, which allows each feature to be processed separately in a more refined manner, has been reported in various systems and animals such as the barn owl sound localization system (processing time and intensity differences for distinct neuronal pathways; Peña and Konishi, 2001) and the jamming avoidance system in electric fish (amplitude and frequency detection by two distinct neuronal populations; Scheich et al., 1973). In this study, we identified neuronal populations that were sensitive to sequential arrangements of elements and common acoustic features. Embedding information in the sequential arrangement of elements significantly increased the variations in song patterns without increasing the capacity to detect variations in acoustic features. Our prediction using the naive Bayesian decoder trained with neuronal responses showed superior song discriminability with sequence-sensitive neuronal responses. Taken together, our results suggest a neuronal mechanism in the zebra finch brain that simultaneously processes two competing criteria: species identity and individual variation.

Footnotes

  • We thank Dr. Dongqi Han for providing the code for the t-SNE analysis. This work was supported by OIST Graduate University, a JSPS KAKENHI Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) (18H02531, 23H02593) and a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Innovative Areas [“Dynamic Regulation of Brain Function by Scrap and Build System” (17H05754) to Y.Y-S]. We thank Editage (www.editage.com) for English language editing.

  • The authors declare no competing financial interests.

  • Correspondence should be addressed to Yoko Yazaki-Sugiyama at yazaki-sugiyama{at}oist.jp.

SfN exclusive license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Araki M,
    2. Bandi MM,
    3. Yazaki-Sugiyama Y
    (2016) Mind the gap: neural coding of species identity in birdsong prosody. Science 354:1282–1287. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah6799
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Bailey DJ,
    2. Rosebush JC,
    3. Wade J
    (2002) The hippocampus and caudomedial neostriatum show selective responsiveness to conspecific song in the female zebra finch. J Neurobiol 52:43–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/neu.10070
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Bauer EE,
    2. Coleman MJ,
    3. Roberts TF,
    4. Roy A,
    5. Prather JF,
    6. Mooney R
    (2008) A synaptic basis for auditory–vocal integration in the songbird. J Neurosci 28:1509–1522. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3838-07.2008 pmid:18256272
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Böhner J
    (1983) Song learning in the zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata): selectivity in the choice of a tutor and accuracy of song copies. Anim Behav 31:231–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(83)80193-6
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. ↵
    1. Bolhuis JJ,
    2. Gahr M
    (2006) Neural mechanisms of birdsong memory. Nat Rev Neurosci 7:347–357. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1904
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Bottjer SW,
    2. Ronald AA,
    3. Kaye T
    (2019) Response properties of single neurons in higher level auditory cortex of adult songbirds. J Neurophysiol 121:218–237. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00751.2018 pmid:30461366
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Braaten RF,
    2. Reynolds K
    (1999) Auditory preference for conspecific song in isolation-reared zebra finches. Anim Behav 58:105–111. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1999.1134
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Caliński T,
    2. Harabasz J
    (1974) A dendrite method for cluster analysis. Commun Stat Theory Methods 3:1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610927408827101
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    1. Canopoli A,
    2. Herbst JA,
    3. Hahnloser RH
    (2014) A higher sensory brain region is involved in reversing reinforcement-induced vocal changes in a songbird. J Neurosci 34:7018–7026. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0266-14.2014 pmid:24828654
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Chang L,
    2. Tsao DY
    (2017) The code for facial identity in the primate brain. Cell 169:1013–1028.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2017.05.011 pmid:28575666
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Chen J,
    2. Ten Cate C
    (2015) Zebra finches can use positional and transitional cues to distinguish vocal element strings. Behav Proc 117:29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.09.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Clayton N
    (1988) Song discrimination learning in zebra finches. Anim Behav 36:1016–1024. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(88)80061-7
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. ↵
    1. Clayton NS
    (1990) Subspecies recognition and song learning in zebra finches. Anim Behav 40:1009–1017. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80169-1
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. ↵
    1. Clayton N,
    2. Pröve E
    (1989) Song discrimination in female zebra finches and Bengalese finches. Anim Behav 38:352–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(89)80096-X
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. ↵
    1. Davies DL,
    2. Bouldin DW
    (1979) A cluster separation measure. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell PAMI-1:224–227. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.1979.4766909
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Elie JE,
    2. Theunissen FE
    (2016) The vocal repertoire of the domesticated zebra finch: a data-driven approach to decipher the information-bearing acoustic features of communication signals. Anim Cogn 19:285–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0933-6 pmid:26581377
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Elie JE,
    2. Theunissen FE
    (2018) Zebra finches identify individuals using vocal signatures unique to each call type. Nat Commun 9:4026. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06394-9 pmid:30279497
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Fishbein AR,
    2. Idsardi WJ,
    3. Ball GF,
    4. Dooling RJ
    (2020) Sound sequences in birdsong: how much do birds really care? Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 375:20190044. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0044 pmid:31735149
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Fishbein AR,
    2. Prior NH,
    3. Brown JA,
    4. Ball GF,
    5. Dooling RJ
    (2021) Discrimination of natural acoustic variation in vocal signals. Sci Rep 11:916. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79641-z pmid:33441711
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Gaese BH,
    2. Ostwald J
    (2001) Anesthesia changes frequency tuning of neurons in the rat primary auditory cortex. J Neurophysiol 86:1062–1066. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.2001.86.2.1062
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Gobes SM,
    2. Bolhuis JJ
    (2007) Birdsong memory: a neural dissociation between song recognition and production. Curr Biol 17:789–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.03.059
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Goffinet J,
    2. Brudner S,
    3. Mooney R,
    4. Pearson J
    (2021) Low-dimensional learned feature spaces quantify individual and group differences in vocal repertoires. Elife 10:e67855. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.67855 pmid:33988503
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Honarmand M,
    2. Riebel K,
    3. Naguib M
    (2015) Nutrition and peer group composition in early adolescence: impacts on male song and female preference in zebra finches. Anim Behav 107:147–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.06.017
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. ↵
    1. James LS,
    2. Sakata JT
    (2017) Learning biases underlie “universals” in avian vocal sequencing. Curr Biol 27:3676–3682.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.10.019
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Karino G,
    2. George I,
    3. Loison L,
    4. Heyraud C,
    5. De Groof G,
    6. Hausberger M,
    7. Cousillas H
    (2016) Anesthesia and brain sensory processing: impact on neuronal responses in a female songbird. Sci Rep 14:39143. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep39143 pmid:27966648
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Katic J,
    2. Morohashi Y,
    3. Yazaki-Sugiyama Y
    (2022) Neural circuit for social authentication in song learning. Nat Commun 13:4442. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32207-1 pmid:35973980
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Kingma DP,
    2. Welling M
    (2013) Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114.
  28. ↵
    1. Lachlan RF,
    2. Van Heijningen CA,
    3. Ter Haar SM,
    4. Ten Cate C
    (2016) Zebra finch song phonology and syntactical structure across populations and continents—a computational comparison. Front Psychol 7:980. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00980 pmid:27458396
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Lachlan RF,
    2. Verhagen L,
    3. Peters S,
    4. Ten Cate C
    (2010) Are there species-universal categories in bird song phonology and syntax? A comparative study of chaffinches (Fringilla coelebs), zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata), and swamp sparrows (Melospiza georgiana). J Comp Psychol 124:92–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016996
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Lawson SL,
    2. Fishbein AR,
    3. Prior NH,
    4. Ball GF,
    5. Dooling RJ
    (2018) Relative salience of syllable structure and syllable order in zebra finch song. Anim Cogn 21:467–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-018-1182-2 pmid:29766379
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Levakova M,
    2. Tamborrino M,
    3. Ditlevsen S,
    4. Lansky P
    (2015) A review of the methods for neuronal response latency estimation. BioSystems 136:23–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2015.04.008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Lewicki MS,
    2. Konishi M
    (1995) Mechanisms underlying the sensitivity of songbird forebrain neurons to temporal order. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 92:5582–5586. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.92.12.5582 pmid:7777552
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. Margoliash D
    (1983) Acoustic parameters underlying the responses of song-specific neurons in the white-crowned sparrow. J Neurosci 3:1039–1057. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.03-05-01039.1983 pmid:6842281
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Margoliash D
    (1986) Preference for autogenous song by auditory neurons in a song system nucleus of the white-crowned sparrow. J Neurosci 6:1643–1661. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.06-06-01643.1986 pmid:3712002
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. Margoliash D,
    2. Fortune ES
    (1992) Temporal and harmonic combination-sensitive neurons in the zebra finch's HVc. J Neurosci 12:4309–4326. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.12-11-04309.1992 pmid:1432096
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    1. Mesgarani N,
    2. Cheung C,
    3. Johnson K,
    4. Chang EF
    (2014) Phonetic feature encoding in human superior temporal gyrus. Science 343:1006–1010. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1245994 pmid:24482117
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. Miller DB
    (1979) Long-term recognition of father's song by female zebra finches. Nature 280:389–391. https://doi.org/10.1038/280389a0
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. ↵
    1. Mooney R
    (2000) Different subthreshold mechanisms underlie song selectivity in identified HVc neurons of the zebra finch. J Neurosci 20:5420–5436. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.20-14-05420.2000 pmid:10884326
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. ↵
    1. Nagel KI,
    2. Doupe AJ
    (2008) Organizing principles of spectro-temporal encoding in the avian primary auditory area field L. Neuron 58:938–955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.04.028 pmid:18579083
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Ning Z-Y,
    2. Honing H,
    3. Ten Cate C
    (2023) Zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata) demonstrate cognitive flexibility in using phonology and sequence of syllables in auditory discrimination. Anim Cogn 26:1161–1175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-023-01763-4 pmid:36934374
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Peña JL,
    2. Konishi M
    (2001) Auditory spatial receptive fields created by multiplication. Science 292:249–252. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1059201
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    1. Phan ML,
    2. Pytte CL,
    3. Vicario DS
    (2006) Early auditory experience generates long-lasting memories that may subserve vocal learning in songbirds. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103:1088–1093. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0510136103 pmid:16418265
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. ↵
    1. Robotka H,
    2. Thomas L,
    3. Yu K,
    4. Wood W,
    5. Elie J,
    6. Gahr M,
    7. Theunissen FE
    (2023) Sparse ensemble neural code for a complete vocal repertoire. Cell Rep 42:112034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2023.112034 pmid:36696266
    OpenUrlPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Rousseeuw PJ
    (1987) Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. J Comput Appl Math 20:53–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-0427(87)90125-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Scharff C,
    2. Nottebohm F
    (1991) A comparative study of the behavioral deficits following lesions of various parts of the zebra finch song system: implications for vocal learning. J Neurosci 11:2896–2913. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.11-09-02896.1991 pmid:1880555
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. ↵
    1. Scheich H,
    2. Bullock TH,
    3. Hamstra R Jr.
    (1973) Coding properties of two classes of afferent nerve fibers: high-frequency electroreceptors in the electric fish, Eigenmannia. J Neurophysiol 36:39–60. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1973.36.1.39
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Schneider DM,
    2. Woolley SM
    (2013) Sparse and background-invariant coding of vocalizations in auditory scenes. Neuron 79:141–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.04.038 pmid:23849201
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Solis MM,
    2. Doupe AJ
    (1997) Anterior forebrain neurons develop selectivity by an intermediate stage of birdsong learning. J Neurosci 17:6447–6462. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.17-16-06447.1997 pmid:9236252
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. ↵
    1. Spierings MJ,
    2. Ten Cate C
    (2016) Budgerigars and zebra finches differ in how they generalize in an artificial grammar learning experiment. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113:E3977–E3984. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1600483113 pmid:27325756
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. ↵
    1. Spool JA,
    2. Macedo-Lima M,
    3. Scarpa G,
    4. Morohashi Y,
    5. Yazaki-Sugiyama Y,
    6. Remage-Healey L
    (2021) Genetically identified neurons in avian auditory pallium mirror core principles of their mammalian counterparts. Curr Biol 31:s2831–2843.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.04.039 pmid:33989528
    OpenUrlPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Stoddard PK,
    2. Beecher MD,
    3. Horning CL,
    4. Campbell SE
    (1991) Recognition of individual neighbors by song in the song sparrow, a species with song repertoires. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29:211–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00166403
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. ↵
    1. Sturdy CB,
    2. Phillmore LS,
    3. Price JL,
    4. Weisman RG
    (1999a) Song-note discriminations in zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata): categories and pseudocategories. J Comp Psychol 113:204. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.113.2.204
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  53. ↵
    1. Sturdy CB,
    2. Phillmore LS,
    3. Weisman RG
    (1999b) Note types, harmonic structure, and note order in the songs of zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata). J Comp Psychol 113:194. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.113.2.194
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  54. ↵
    1. Tchernichovski O,
    2. Eisenberg-Edidin S,
    3. Jarvis ED
    (2021) Balanced imitation sustains song culture in zebra finches. Nat Commun 12:2562. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22852-3 pmid:33963187
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Tchernichovski O,
    2. Mitra P
    (2002) Towards quantification of vocal imitation in the zebra finch. J Comp Physiol A 188:867–878. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-002-0352-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Tchernichovski O,
    2. Nottebohm F,
    3. Ho CE,
    4. Pesaran B,
    5. Mitra PP
    (2000) A procedure for an automated measurement of song similarity. Anim Behav 59:1167–1176. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1999.1416
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Theunissen FE,
    2. Doupe AJ
    (1998) Temporal and spectral sensitivity of complex auditory neurons in the nucleus HVc of male zebra finches. J Neurosci 18:3786–3802. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.18-10-03786.1998 pmid:9570809
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. ↵
    1. Tomaszycki ML,
    2. Blaine SK
    (2014) Temporary inactivation of NCM, an auditory region, increases social interaction and decreases song perception in female zebra finches. Behav Processes 108:65–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.09.031
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Van Heijningen CA,
    2. De Visser J,
    3. Zuidema W,
    4. Ten Cate C
    (2009) Simple rules can explain discrimination of putative recursive syntactic structures by a songbird species. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:20538–20543. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908113106 pmid:19918074
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. ↵
    1. Vernaleo BA,
    2. Dooling RJ
    (2011) Relative salience of envelope and fine structure cues in zebra finch song. J Acoust Soc Am 129:3373–3383. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3560121 pmid:21568438
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Vinken K,
    2. Prince JS,
    3. Konkle T,
    4. Livingstone MS
    (2023) The neural code for “face cells” is not face-specific. Sci Adv 9:eadg1736. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adg1736 pmid:37647400
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Williams H,
    2. Staples K
    (1992) Syllable chunking in zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata) song. J Comp Psychol 106:278–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.106.3.278
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Yanagihara S,
    2. Yazaki-Sugiyama Y
    (2016) Auditory experience-dependent cortical circuit shaping for memory formation in bird song learning. Nat Commun 7:11946. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11946 pmid:27327620
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Yu K,
    2. Wood WE,
    3. Johnston LG,
    4. Theunissen FE
    (2023) Lesions to caudomedial nidopallium impair individual vocal recognition in the zebra finch. J Neurosci 43:2579–2596. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0643-22.2023 pmid:36859308
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  65. ↵
    1. Yu K,
    2. Wood W,
    3. Theunissen F
    (2020) High-capacity auditory memory for vocal communication in a social songbird. Sci Adv 6:eabe0440. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abe0440 pmid:33188032
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  66. ↵
    1. Zann R
    (1993a) Structure, sequence and evolution of song elements in wild Australian zebra finches. Auk 110:702–715. https://doi.org/10.2307/4088626
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  67. ↵
    1. Zann R
    (1993b) Variation in song structure within and among populations of Australian zebra finches. Auk 110:716–726. https://doi.org/10.2307/4088627
    OpenUrl
  68. ↵
    1. Zann RA
    (1996) The zebra finch: a synthesis of field and laboratory studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 45 (14)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 45, Issue 14
2 Apr 2025
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Masthead (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Detection of Individual Differences Encoded in Sequential Variations of Elements in Zebra Finch Songs
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Detection of Individual Differences Encoded in Sequential Variations of Elements in Zebra Finch Songs
Zhehao Cheng (程柘皓), Yoko Yazaki-Sugiyama (杉山 (矢崎) 陽子)
Journal of Neuroscience 2 April 2025, 45 (14) e1071242025; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1071-24.2025

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Detection of Individual Differences Encoded in Sequential Variations of Elements in Zebra Finch Songs
Zhehao Cheng (程柘皓), Yoko Yazaki-Sugiyama (杉山 (矢崎) 陽子)
Journal of Neuroscience 2 April 2025, 45 (14) e1071242025; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1071-24.2025
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • Peer Review
  • PDF

Keywords

  • auditory
  • auditory information processing
  • higher auditory cortex
  • songbird
  • sparse coding
  • vocal

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Research Articles

  • Increased neuronal expression of the early endosomal adaptor APPL1 replicates Alzheimer’s Disease-related endosomal and synaptic dysfunction with cholinergic neurodegeneration.
  • Presynaptic mu opioid receptors suppress the functional connectivity of ventral tegmental area dopaminergic neurons with aversion-related brain regions
  • Change of spiny neuron structure in the basal ganglia song circuit and its regulation by miR-9 during song development
Show more Research Articles

Behavioral/Cognitive

  • Increased neuronal expression of the early endosomal adaptor APPL1 replicates Alzheimer’s Disease-related endosomal and synaptic dysfunction with cholinergic neurodegeneration.
  • Presynaptic mu opioid receptors suppress the functional connectivity of ventral tegmental area dopaminergic neurons with aversion-related brain regions
  • Change of spiny neuron structure in the basal ganglia song circuit and its regulation by miR-9 during song development
Show more Behavioral/Cognitive
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Notice
  • Contact
  • Accessibility
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2025 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.