Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Producer Biases and Kin Selection in the Evolution of Communication

How the Phylogenetic and the Adaptive Problems of Communication Can Be Solved

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Evolution of Communication and Language in Embodied Agents

Abstract

The evolution of communication requires the co-evolution of two abilities: the ability to send useful signals and the ability to react appropriately to perceived signals. This fact poses two related but distinct problems, which are often mixed up: (1) the phylogenetic problem regarding how can communication evolve if the two traits that are necessary for its emergence are complementary and seem to require each other for providing reproductive advantages; (2) the adaptive problem regarding how can communication systems that do not advantage both signallers and receivers in the same way emerge, given their altruistic character. Here we clarify the distinction, and provide some insights on how these problems can be solved in both real and artificial systems by reporting experiments on the evolution of artificial agents that have to evolve a simple food-call communication system. Our experiments show that (1) the phylogenetic problem can be solved thanks to the presence of producer biases that make agents spontaneously produce useful signals, an idea that is complementary to the well-known “receiver bias” hypothesis found in the biological literature, and (2) the adaptive problem can be solved by having agents communicate preferentially among kin, as predicted by kin selection theory. We discuss these results with respect to both the scientific understanding of the evolution of communication and the design of embodied and communicating artificial agents.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackley, D. H., & Littman, M. L. (1994). Altruism in the evolution of communication. In R. A. Brooks & P. Maes (Eds.), Artificial life IV: proceedings of the international workshop on the synthesis and simulation of living systems (pp. 40–48). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arak, A., & Enquist, M. (1995). Conflict, receiver bias and the evolution of signal form. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series B, 349, 337–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, R. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211(4489), 1390–1396.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Basolo, A. L. (1995). Phylogenetic evidence for the role of a pre-existing bias in sexual selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 259(1356), 307–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beer, R. D. (2003). The dynamics of active categorical perception in an evolved model agent. Adaptive Behavior, 11(4), 209–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, R. A. (1991). Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 47, 139–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bullock, S. (1998). A continuous evolutionary simulation model of the attainability of honest signalling equilibria. In C. Adami, R. Belew, H. Kitano, & C. Taylor (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial life (pp. 339–348).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cangelosi, A., & Harnad, S. (2000). The adaptive advantage of symbolic theft over sensorimotor toil: Grounding language in perceptual categories. Evolution of Communication, 4, 117–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cangelosi, A., & Parisi, D. (1998). The emergence of a language in an evolving population of neural networks. Connection Science, 10(2), 83–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (1990). How monkeys see the world: inside the mind of another species. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R., & Krebs, J. R. (1978). Animal signals: information or manipulation? In J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies (Eds.), Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach (pp. 282–309). Oxford: Blackwell Sci.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Paolo, E. (1998). An investigation into the evolution of communication. Adaptive Behavior, 6(2), 285–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Paolo, E. A. (1999). A little more than kind and less than kin: the unwarranted use of kin selection in spatial models of communication. In D. Floreano, J. Nicoud, & F. Mondada (Eds.), Advances in artificial life. Proceedings of the 5th European conference on artificial life (pp. 504–513). Lausanne: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endler, J. A., & Basolo, A. L. (1998). Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 13(10), 415–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frisch, K. V. (1967). The dance language and orientation of bees. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafen, A. (1990). Biological signals as handicaps. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 144, 517–546.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, T., & Dawkins, M. S. (1991). Receiver psychology and the evolution of animal signals. Animal Behaviour, 42, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, W. D. (1964). Genetic evolution of social behavior. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7(1), 1–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, I. (1996). Untimed and misrepresented: connectionism and the computer metaphor. AISB Quarterly, 96, 20–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, M. D. (1996). The evolution of communication. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hihara, S., Yamada, H., Iriki, A., & Okanoya, K. (2003). Spontaneous vocal differentiation of coo-calls for tools and food in Japanese monkeys. Neuroscience Research, 45, 383–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krebs, J. R., & Dawkins, R. (1984). Animal signals: Mind-reading and manipulation. In J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies (Eds.), Behavioral ecology: an evolutionary approach (2nd ed.) (pp. 380–402). Oxford: Blackwell Sci. Chap. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lotem, A., Wagner, R., & Balshine-Earn, S. (1999). The overlooked signaling component in non-signaling behavior. Behavioral Ecology, 10, 209–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacLennan, B., & Burghardt, G. M. (1993). Synthetic ethology and the evolution of cooperative communication. Adaptive Behavior, 2(2), 161–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marocco, D., Cangelosi, A., & Nolfi, S. (2003). The emergence of communication in evolutionary robots. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A, Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 361(1811), 2397–2421.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard-Smith, J., & Harper, D. G. (2003). Animal signals. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirolli, M., & Parisi, D. (2005). How can we explain the emergence of a language which benefits the hearer but not the speaker? Connection Science, 17(3–4), 325–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirolli, M., & Parisi, D. (2006). Talking to oneself as a selective pressure for the emergence of language. In A. Cangelosi, A. Smith, & K. Smith (Eds.), The evolution of language: proceedings of the 6th international conference on the evolution of language (pp. 214–221). Singapore: World Scientific.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mirolli, M., & Parisi, D. (2008). How producer biases can favour the evolution of communication: an analysis of evolutionary dynamics. Adaptive Behavior, 16(1), 27–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirolli, M., & Parisi, D. (2009). Towards a Vygotskyan cognitive robotics: the role of language as a cognitive tool. New Ideas in Psychology. doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.07.001, ISSN 0732-118X, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VD4-4X00P73-1/2/5eb2e93d3fc615eea3ec0f637af6fc89

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M. (1996). Introduction to genetic algorithms. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noble, J. (1998). Tough guys don’t dance: intention movements and the evolution of signalling in animal. In R. Pfeifer, B. Blumberg, & H. Kobayashi (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth international conference on the simulation of adaptive behavior. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noble, J., Di Paolo, E. A., & Bullock, S. (2001). Adaptive factors in the evolution of signalling systems. In A. Cangelosi & D. Parisi (Eds.), Simulating the evolution of language (pp. 53–78). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliphant, M. (1996). The dilemma of saussurean communication. Biosystems, 37(1–2), 31–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parisi, D. (1997). An artificial life approach to language. Brain and Language, 59, 121–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, H. C. (1992). Sensory exploitation and the evolution of male mating behaviour: a cladistic test using water mites (acari: Parasitengona). Animal Behaviour, (44), 745–752.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M. J. (1990). Sexual selection, sensory systems and sensory exploitation. Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology, 7, 157–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M. J., & Rand, A. S. (1993). Sexual selection and signal evolution: the ghost of biases past. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 340, 187–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M. J., Fox, J. H., Wilczynski, W., & Rand, A. S. (1990). Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the frog physalaemus pustulosus. Nature, 343(6253), 66–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M. J., Phelps, S. M., & Rand, A. S. (2001). How evolutionary history shapes recognition mechanisms. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(4), 143–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seeley, T. D. (1992). The tremble dance of the honey bee: message and meanings. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 31, 375–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1990). A mechanism for social selection and successful altruism. Science, 250, 1665–1668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steels, L. (1996). Emergent adaptive lexicons. In P. Maes, M. Mataric, J. Meyer, J. Pollack, & S. Wilson (Eds.), From animals to animats 4: proceedings of the fourth international conference on simulation of adaptive behavior (pp. 562–567). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Struhsaker, T. T. (1967). Auditory communication among vervet monkeys (cercopithecus aethiops). In S. A. Altmann (Ed.), Social communication among primates. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen, N. (1952). Derived activities: Their causation, biological significance, origin and emancipation during evolution. Quarterly Review of Biology, 27, 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie, 20, 410–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection. A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53, 205–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, CNR, Rome, Italy

    Marco Mirolli & Domenico Parisi

Authors
  1. Marco Mirolli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Domenico Parisi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Mirolli .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. e Tecnologie della Cognizione, CNR Roma, ISTC - Ist. Scienze, Via San Martino della Battaglia 44, Roma, 00185, Italy

    Stefano Nolfi

  2. e Tecnologie della Cognizione, CNR Roma, ISTC - Ist. Scienze, Via San Martino della Battaglia 44, Roma, 00185, Italy

    Marco Mirolli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mirolli, M., Parisi, D. (2010). Producer Biases and Kin Selection in the Evolution of Communication. In: Nolfi, S., Mirolli, M. (eds) Evolution of Communication and Language in Embodied Agents. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01250-1_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01250-1_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-01249-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-01250-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics