Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Multicomponent and multisensory communicative acts in orang-utans may serve different functions

Abstract

From early infancy, human face-to-face communication is multimodal, comprising a plethora of interlinked communicative and sensory modalities. Although there is also growing evidence for this in nonhuman primates, previous research rarely disentangled production from perception of signals. Consequently, the functions of integrating articulators (i.e. production organs involved in multicomponent acts) and sensory channels (i.e. modalities involved in multisensory acts) remain poorly understood. Here, we studied close-range social interactions within and beyond mother-infant pairs of Bornean and Sumatran orang-utans living in wild and captive settings, to examine use of and responses to multicomponent and multisensory communication. From the perspective of production, results showed that multicomponent acts were used more than the respective unicomponent acts when the presumed goal did not match the dominant outcome for a specific communicative act, and were more common among non-mother-infant dyads and Sumatran orang-utans. From the perception perspective, we found that multisensory acts were more effective than the respective unisensory acts, and were used more in wild compared to captive populations. We argue that multisensory acts primarily facilitate effectiveness, whereas multicomponent acts become relevant when interaction outcomes are less predictable. These different functions underscore the importance of distinguishing between production and perception in studies of communication.

Introduction

Human face-to-face communication is a multimodal phenomenon: our everyday speech is embedded in an interactional exchange of coordinated visual, auditory, and often even tactile signals. Some parts of these complex displays are intrinsically coupled due to the effort of vocal production (such as mouth movement accompanying speech sounds), but others are flexible (e.g. gaze and co-speech gestures). Research on the nature and function of human multimodal interaction has focused particularly on flexible combinations of different articulators (i.e. signal production organs such as hands, lips and eyes)1,2. For instance, speech acts accompanied by gestures and gaze are processed faster3 and elicit faster responses4,5, respectively. This suggests that a complex orchestration of articulators and sensory channels facilitates comprehension and prediction during language processing6. Many non-human species also have a natural predisposition for multimodal social interactions, as evident in complex mating, warning and dominance displays7,8.

Multimodal signalling can be disentangled based on the perspective of production versus perception: multicomponent (or: multiplex) communication involves at least two different articulators or communication organs at the production side6, such as hands plus gaze, whereas multisensory (or: multimodal sensu stricto) communication involves at least two different sensory channels at the perception end, such as visual plus auditory9. Many communicative acts are both multi-component and multisensory, for instance, a tactile gesture combined with a vocalisation, whereas some are just multisensory, such as the audio-visual loud scratch gesture (observed during the initiation of mother-offspring joint travel in chimpanzees and orang-utans10,11), and others are only multicomponent, such as a visual gesture combined with a facial expression. In fact, our closest living relatives, the great apes, are renowned for signalling intentional communicative acts in large part by non-vocal means in their close-range dyadic interactions8,12,13. Many of these signals are intrinsically multisensory (e.g. tactile gestures that can be simultaneously seen and felt by a receiver, or lip-smacking which can be seen and heard), but they can also be integrated with other, non-vocal or vocal acts in multicomponent signal combinations (e.g.12,13,14). The term multimodality has confusingly been used to refer to communicative acts that involve multiple communicative features/articulators (e.g.15,16), but also multiple sensory channels (e.g.7,17). Therefore, we will henceforth refer to multicomponent and multisensory acts, respectively, to explicitly discriminate between the aspects of communicative acts that reflect production and affect perception, respectively (Table 1).

Table 1 Definition and operationalisation of relevant terms used in analyses.

The fact that close-range communicative acts may be either multicomponent or multisensory (even if many are both) highlights the importance of teasing apart production and perception aspects of communicative acts if we wish to assess whether they serve different communicative functions. Studying the flexible production of signals is critical as some communication systems (e.g. those of primate species) often lack the one-to-one correspondence between signal and outcome8,17. On the other hand, understanding the role of perception is important because the function of animal signals is predicted by receiver psychology18,19 and thus by the receiver’s sensory systems7,20. However, to date, no study has explicitly examined specifically how the function of multicomponent signals compares to that of multisensory signals in a great ape taxon (nor, to our knowledge, in humans). The theoretical and empirical differences between these combination types are often ignored in comparative research12,17, but addressing them would be key to draw conclusions about homologous features in the human/ape communication system21.

A neurobiological perspective underscores the plausibility of differentiating between the production and perception aspects of communicative acts: in contexts or situations requiring a multicomponent act, the signaller is forced to execute (at least) two different motor commands in different articulators. Neurobiological research on human communicative processing suggests that the integration between speech and gesture depends on the context and is under voluntary control rather than obligatory22. Co-speech gestures may therefore provide additional information, depending on the communicative nature of the situation (e.g. whether or not there is shared common ground between the signaller and the recipient)23 as well as on gaze direction (i.e. whether or not the signaller’s gaze is directed at the addressee)24. Together with rich evidence that multicomponent acts serve to refine messages1,25,26, this suggests they are of particular relevance when outcomes are less predictable: when social partners are less familiar or more socially distant to each other, they are less likely to have engaged in a specific communicative context, and disambiguation of signal meaning may become necessary.

The multisensory case explicitly takes the recipient’s (and thus, the perception) perspective: the recipient is forced to integrate incoming information in at least two different sensory channels that initially are processed in different brain regions. Visual and auditory pathways, for instance, are largely separate before converging in the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (vlPFC) onto neurons that represent higher-order multisensory representations of signals, such as vocalisations and their associated facial expressions27. This need to integrate may make it more likely that the communicative act is accurately processed compared to a unisensory signal, suggesting that multisensory communication serves to ensure that a signal is understood28,29.

These neurobiological considerations suggest that multi-component and multisensory acts may serve different functions. Comparative researchers have recently begun to study the function of great apes’ multicomponent and multisensory communication via observational research, focusing on bi-articulatory gesture-vocal combinations12,13,14,16 and considering mostly two different function(s): redundancy and refinement9,17,29 (but see e.g. refs. 17,30 for further hypotheses that have been discussed in relation to complex signal function). The redundant signal (hereafter referred to as redundancy) hypothesis implies that the different components convey the same information9, facilitating the detection and processing of a message28. For example, using a conspicuous signal involving multiple modalities that contain the same information (e.g. audible and visual) makes it easier to be detected by a recipient in noisy environments31,32 and can thus increase effectiveness (i.e. responsiveness). Multisensory displays in several taxa, such as monkeys33, birds34,35,36, fish37, and insects38,39 were found to be consistent with this hypothesis.

In contrast, the refinement hypothesis posits that the presence of one signal component may provide the context in which a receiver can interpret and respond to the second, with the combinations serving to disambiguate meanings (i.e. functions) when these partly overlap17,29. For instance, adding a signal (e.g. facial expression) to another one (e.g. gesture) may affect the likelihood of a certain interaction outcome (e.g. affiliative behaviour)40, but also overall effectiveness (despite the fact that information of the constituent parts is non-redundant). Some evidence corroborating this hypothesis was gathered from great apes12,13,14,40. An important shortcoming of previous work, however, was that researchers did not disentangle production and perception of communicative acts, i.e. whether constituent parts varied with regard to articulators (signal production organs) or sensory channels (modalities). Teasing these apart will allow us to gain more insight into the function of multisensory signals and signal combinations in great apes.

The aim of this study was to disentangle multisensory and multicomponent communication in the great ape genus that is one of the most suitable for this avenue of research: orang-utans (Pongo spp.). First, the orang-utan populations of Borneo (Pongo pygmaeus wurmbii) and Northwest-Sumatra (i.e. Suaq and Ketambe, Pongo abelii) differ considerably in sociability (41, cf. 42) and social tolerance (Bornean orang-utans become more stressed in group settings than Sumatrans43). The consistently higher level of sociability in Sumatrans may lead to a greater need to refine messages conveyed in signals, and thus to more multicomponent use of communicative acts. Second, in contrast to natural environments, captive orang-utans are always in close proximity and more on the ground9,17,29, and the lack of visual obstruction by vegetation may reduce the need for multisensory signals. Their sociability is also not constrained by food availability44. In the wild, individuals may have fewer opportunities to interact, and communication is hampered by arboreality and obscuring vegetation, whereas captivity enables frequent interactions and short-distance communication with conspecifics other than the mother. Third, the pairing of social partners (interaction dyad) also affects features of social interactions regardless of captive-wild and Bornean-Sumatran contrasts, e.g. due to differences in social tolerance and familiarity45,46. Although mothers are the most important communication partner of infant orang-utans10,47,48, temporary associations during feeding or travelling occur, particularly if food is abundant49,50, thus providing opportunities for social interactions beyond the mother–infant unit51,52,53. We expect that the reduced social tolerance of these dyads, and thus the lower predictability of interaction outcomes, would lead them to use more multicomponent signals.

We examined close-range communicative interactions of Bornean and Sumatran orang-utans in two wild populations and five zoos. While focal units in this study consisted of mothers and their dependent offspring, we also examined interactions with and among other members of the group/temporary association. By examining species differences related to differential sociability on one hand, and recipient-dependent factors on the other, we aimed to evaluate two major hypotheses explaining the function of multisensory and multicomponent communication (i.e. in the same sensory modality) discussed for great apes: redundancy and refinement. Since there are virtually no studies applying a similar comparative approach to any primate species, our predictions are largely exploratory.

If multisensory communicative acts indeed function as backup signals (constituent parts convey the same information as suggested by the redundancy hypothesis9,28), two predictions follow. First, these acts (e.g. comprising visual plus auditory acts produced in one articulator) should be more effective (i.e. more likely to result in the apparently satisfactory outcome11, see ‘Methods’ section) than the single (e.g. purely visual) constituent parts, but have little or no effect on the type of outcome (i.e. dominant versus non-dominant interaction outcome, referring to whether or not the presumed goal of a particular communicative act aligned with its most common outcome, see Table 1). Second, multisensory acts should be more common in the wild than in captive settings, where semi-solitariness limits interaction opportunities and visual communication is impeded by poor visibility17,29,30.

We now turn to multicomponent acts. If they primarily serve to refine messages, we predict that they would be used more often for non-dominant communicative goals (i.e. reducing ambiguity). For instance, if a certain communicative act is most frequently (>50%) produced towards a single interaction outcome (e.g. soliciting food transfers), but occasionally also in other contexts (e.g. initiating grooming or co-locomotion), we predict that this communicative act is accompanied by other constituent parts (e.g. specific facial expression such as a pout face, or gaze directed at recipient) more often for outcomes that are less common for that communicative act (i.e. non-dominant; in our example grooming or co-locomotion) to reduce ambiguity in these situations. Second, we predict that multicomponent acts would be more common in settings and interactions with higher uncertainty and in more varied social interactions with partners of different age-sex classes in diverse social contexts12,14,17. Specifically, we expect an effect of species- and dyad-dependent effect of setting: although wild individuals may use more acts associated with recipient-oriented gaze than their captive counterparts (due to lower degrees of social tolerance and thus less predictable outcomes), this effect should be more pronounced in Sumatrans (i.e. the more sociable population) and in interactions beyond the mother–offspring unit.

A secondary aim was to examine the sources of variation in the individual sensory modalities and articulators that constitute multicomponent communication in orang-utans. We predict that some modalities and articulators are more often involved in the communication process of orang-utans than others: in natural settings, dense vegetation in the canopy means that there are fewer opportunities for the direct lines-of-sight needed for visual communication, which means that we find fewer purely visual acts of facial expressions and recipient-directed gaze. As arboreal species, orang-utans are thus thought to rely less on purely visual signals than other (e.g. tactile or audio-visual) communicative means49,54. Moreover, previous work in wild and captive settings leads to the expectation that vocalisations play a profoundly lesser role than manual and bodily communicative acts in orang-utans close-range communication10,48,55.

We found that that multisensory acts in orang-utans were more effective than corresponding unisensory acts and were more common in wild populations, suggesting a redundancy function. In contrast, multicomponent acts were more common for communicative acts whose presumed goal did not match with the dominant outcome, and in interactions with less socially tolerant interaction partners, requiring the usage of refining (or disambiguating) acts. Together, these findings demonstrate the importance of empirically distinguishing between production and perception of communicative acts.

Results

Production and perception of communicative acts

Out of the 7587 coded communicative acts, 3465 were unisensory and uni-component, 1774 multi-component but unisensory, 1489 multisensory but uni-component, and 859 both multi-component and multisensory (see Fig. 1 for Venn diagram).

Fig. 1: Composition of the dataset with regard to production and perception of communicative acts.
figure 1

Venn diagram depicting the composition of the dataset distinguishing four exclusive categories of communicative acts: multicomponent unisensory (MC-US), multicomponent multisensory (MC-MS; overlapping area), uni-component multisensory (UC-MS), and uni-component unisensory (UC-US). Depicted values represent total sample sizes per category (Total N = 7587).

Focusing on the production side first, we found that individuals used multicomponent communicative acts (i.e. acts that comprised combinations of different articulators) on average in 31% of instances, 21% of which were unisensory, and about 10 % multisensory. In terms of specific articulators, individuals used manual acts on average in 66% of observed cases, bodily acts in 24%, facial acts in 2%, vocal acts in 3% and recipient-directed gaze in 57% of cases (for detailed results in relation to species and setting, see Table 2; for sources of variation in individuals’ use of specific articulators, see Supplementary Table S1 as well as Supplementary Figs. S1 and S2).

Table 2 Mean percentage and SD (%) of individuals’ use of communicative acts involving specific articulators and sensory modalities, and their outcomes, in relation to the research setting and orang-utan species.

Focusing on perception, we found that individuals used multisensory communicative acts on average in 25% of observed cases, of which 15% were uni-component and about 10% were multicomponent. For specific sensory channels, we found that communicative acts contained salient visual components in 49% of cases, tactile components in 75%, auditory components in 3%, and seismic components in 1%. (for detailed results in relation to species and setting, see Table 2; for sources of variation in individuals’ use of specific modalities, see Supplementary Table S1 and Supplementary Fig. S3).

Use of multicomponent unisensory acts

Using a GLMM with binomial error structure, we test sources of variation in the use of multicomponent acts, considering unisensory (US) acts only. Overall, the full model including the key test predictors (i.e. species x setting, kin relationship) fitted the data better than the null model (Likelihood ratio tests [LRT]: χ25 = 127.093, P < 0.001, N = 5239). Specifically, we found a significant interaction between species and setting (estimate ± s.e. = −1.08 ± 0.356, χ21 = 9.456, P = 0.002; see Fig. 2): post hoc Sidak tests showed that unisensory acts used by Sumatran orang-utans in either research setting were more likely to be multicomponent than those of Borneans (captivity: −1.99 ± 0.291, Z = −6.849, P < 0.001, wild: −0.91 ± 0.215, Z = −4.238, P < 0.001), and that unisensory acts of wild orang-utans of both species were more likely to be multicomponent than those of their captive counterparts (Borneans: −2.36 ± 0.314, Z = −7.508, P < 0.001, Sumatrans: −1.28 ± 0.186, Z = −6.892, P < 0.001). Unisensory communicative acts among mother–infant interactions (−1.071 ± 0.193, χ21 = 28.144, P < 0.001; see Fig. 2) were less likely to be multicomponent than those among other interaction dyads. For effects of non-significant key predictors and those of control variables see Supplementary Table S2.

Fig. 2: Use of multicomponent unisensory (MC-US) acts in captive versus wild orang-utans.
figure 2

Proportion of multicomponent communicative acts in the sample of unisensory acts (N = 5239) as a function of research setting, species and interaction dyad (other dyad includes maternal kin). Proportions were significantly higher in Sumatran orang-utans compared to Borneans in both settings, and higher in wild orang-utans compared to captive ones in both species. Indicated are individual means (circles), population means (filled diamonds), medians (horizontal lines), quartiles (boxes), percentiles (2.5% and 97.5%, vertical lines) and outliers (filled dots).

Use of multisensory uni-component acts

Next, we used an equivalent GLMM to test sources of variation in the use of multisensory acts, this time considering uni-component (UC) acts only. The full model with the key test predictors fitted the data better than the null model (LRT: χ25 = 141.954, P < 0.001, N = 4954). With regard to effects of specific key test predictors, we found a significant interaction between orang-utan species and research setting (−1.306 ± 0.391, χ21 = 12.041, P = 0.001): post hoc Sidak tests showed that uni-component acts in wild orang-utans were more likely to be multisensory (than unisensory) compared to those of their captive counterparts regardless of species (Borneans: −3.13 ± 0.338, Z = −9.314, P < 0.001, Sumatrans: −1.82 ± 0.216, Z = −8.461, P < 0.001), and that captive Sumatrans produced more multisensory, uni-component acts than captive Borneans (−1.342 ± 0.334, Z = − 4.021, P < 0.001; see Fig. 3). For effects of other, non-significant key predictors and those of control variables see Supplementary Table S2.

Fig. 3: Use of multisensory uni-component (MS-UC) acts in captive versus wild orang-utans.
figure 3

Proportion of multisensory communicative acts in the sample of uni-component acts (N = 4954) as a function of the research setting, species and interaction dyad. Proportions were significantly higher in wild orang-utans compared to captive ones regardless of species, and in captive Sumatran orang-utans compared to captive Borneans. Indicated are individual means (circles), population means (filled diamonds), medians (horizontal lines), quartiles (boxes), percentiles (2.5% and 97.5%, vertical lines) and outliers (filled dots).

Use of multicomponent multisensory acts

Finally, we tested sources of variation in the use of multicomponent multisensory acts, considering subsets of the dataset that consisted either only of multicomponent acts or only of multisensory acts (allowing to test the effect of the second type of integration). First, considering only the dataset of multisensory acts (i.e. contrasting MC-MS with UC-MS), we again found that the full model including the key test predictors fitted the data better than the null model (LRT: χ25 = 45.235, P < 0.001, N = 2348). Specifically, we found a significant interaction between species and setting (−2.071 ± 0.866, χ21 = 6.049, P = 0.014; see Fig. 4): post hoc Sidak tests showed that the multisensory acts of captive Sumatran orang-utans consisted more often of multiple components than those of wild Sumatrans (1.406 ± 0.343, Z = 4.097, P = 0.001) and captive Borneans (−2.458 ± 0.815, Z = −3.016, P = 0.003). With regard to kinship effects, we found that multisensory acts among mother-offspring dyads were less likely to be multicomponent than those among other interaction dyads (−0.627 ± 0.314, χ21 = 3.987, P = 0.046; see Fig. 4). For effects of control variables see Supplementary Table S2.

Fig. 4: Use of multicomponent-multisensory acts (MC-MS) in captive versus wild orang-utans.
figure 4

Proportion of multicomponent acts in the sample of multisensory acts (N = 2348) as a function of the research setting, species and interaction dyad. Proportions were significantly higher in captive Sumatran orang-utans compared to wild Sumatrans and captive Borneans. Indicated are individual means (circles), population means (filled diamonds), medians (horizontal lines), quartiles (boxes), percentiles (2.5% and 97.5%, vertical lines) and outliers (filled dots).

Second, considering only the dataset of multicomponent acts (i.e. contrasting MC-MS with MC-US), the full model including the key test predictors fitted the data better than the null model (LRT: χ25 = 33.793, P < 0.001, N = 2633). Specifically, we found a significant interaction between species and setting (−1.916 ± 0.726, χ21 = 7.664, P = 0.006; see Fig. 5): post hoc Sidak tests showed that the multicomponent acts of wild Bornean orang-utans were more likely to be multisensory than those used by wild Sumatrans (0.691 ± 0.299, Z = 2.312, P = 0.021) and captive Borneans (−1.461 ± 0.68, Z = − 2.15, P = 0.032). For the individual main effects, we found that multicomponent acts were more likely to be multisensory in interactions among mother and offspring (0.558 ± 0.279, χ21 = 3.933, P = 0.047), but less likely so in interactions among maternal kin (−0.914 ± 0.263, χ21 = 11.526, P = 0.001).

Fig. 5: Use of multisensory multicomponent (MS-MC) acts in captive versus wild orang-utans.
figure 5

Proportion of multisensory acts in the sample of multicomponent acts (N = 2633) as a function of the research setting, species and interaction dyad. Proportions were significantly higher in wild Bornean orang-utans compared to wild Sumatrans and captive Borneans. Indicated are individual means (circles), population means (filled diamonds), medians (horizontal lines), quartiles (boxes), percentiles (2.5% and 97.5%, vertical lines) and outliers (filled dots).

Effectiveness of multicomponent versus multisensory acts

On average, signallers received apparently satisfactory responses to their communicative acts in 58% of observed cases (for detailed results in relation to species, setting, and communicative use see Table 2 and Supplementary Fig. S4). Using a GLMM, we tested whether the multisensory (i.e. visual plus other, tactile plus other) and multicomponent (i.e. manual plus other, bodily plus other, recipient-directed gaze plus other) use of communicative acts predicted the probability of receiving an apparently satisfactory outcome. The full models including the key test predictor fitted the data better than the null models for multisensory use of communicative acts (LRT visual plus: χ21 = 14.458, P < 0.001, N = 2301, see Fig. 6a; tactile plus: χ21 = 9.692, P = 0.002, N = 3743, Fig. 6b), as well as for multicomponent acts involving recipient-directed gaze (LRT gaze plus: χ21 = 15.81, P < 0.001, N = 4513, see Supplementary Fig. S5). No such effect was found for other articulators (LRT bodily: χ21 = 0.936, P = 0.333, N = 1498; manual: χ21 = 0.043, P = 0.837, N = 3037). For effects of non-significant key predictors and those of control variables, see Supplementary Table S3. Thus, uni-component communicative acts were more likely to be effective (i.e. result in apparently satisfactory interaction outcomes) when they involved more than one sensory modality, or when recipient-directed gaze was accompanied by another articulator.

Fig. 6: Effectiveness of multisensory uni-component (MS-UC) acts.
figure 6

Proportion of uni-component communicative acts receiving an apparently satisfactory outcome (ASO) as a function of multisensory use (a: visual, N = 2301; b: tactile, N = 3743). Circles indicate individual means, with circle area representing sample size (a range = 1–128, b range = 1–175). Red diamonds depict model estimates with 95% confidence intervals (all other variables centred to a mean of zero).

Association with dominant outcomes by multicomponent versus multisensory acts

Communicative acts were associated with their dominant outcomes in 72% of observed cases (for detailed results in relation to species, setting, and communicative use see Table 2 and Supplementary Fig. S6). Using a GLMM, we tested whether the multicomponent (i.e. manual plus other, bodily plus other, recipient-directed gaze plus other) and multisensory (i.e. visual plus other, tactile plus other) use of communicative acts predicted whether the predominant outcome of a specific type of communicative act was matched. The key test predictor significantly enhanced the model fit for multicomponent use of communicative acts except for those involving a manual component (LRT bodily plus other: χ21 = 4.69, P = 0.03, N = 1429, see Fig. 7a; gaze plus other: χ21 = 6.56, P = 0.01, N = 3869, see Fig. 7b; manual plus other: χ21 = 0.702, P = 0.402, N = 2590). No significant effect was found for multisensory use (LRT visual plus other: χ21 = 3.377, P = 0.066, N = 1674; tactile plus other: χ21 = 3.099, P = 0.078, N = 3129). Effects of non-significant key predictors and those of control variables are provided in Supplementary Table S4. Thus, unisensory communicative acts were significantly less likely to match dominant interaction outcomes when they involved at least two articulators (e.g. gaze plus bodily act), irrespective of setting, species or type of communicative act.

Fig. 7: Dominant outcome matching of multicomponent unisensory (MC-US) acts.
figure 7

Proportion of unisensory communicative acts whose presumed goal matched the dominant outcome (DOM) as a function of multicomponent use (a bodily, N = 1429; b recipient-directed gaze, N = 2590). Circles indicate individual means, with circle area representing sample size per individual (a range = 1–105, b range = 1–182). Red diamonds depict model estimates with 95% confidence intervals (all other variables centred to a mean of zero).

Discussion

This study was aimed at disentangling multicomponent and multisensory communication, and at deciphering the constituting elements (that is, specific sensory modalities and articulators, respectively) in wild and captive orang-utans of two different species. More specifically, we wanted to gain insight into the functions of these two types of communicative acts by studying the effects of species and research setting on signallers’ behaviour, as well as effects of multicomponent and multisensory use on responses and types of interaction outcomes.

One key finding of this study is that both multicomponent and multisensory acts differ from the respective constituent parts in both production and outcomes, and may have different functions depending on social circumstances. Thus, we can greatly improve our understanding of the function of multimodality if we tease apart the articulators and sensory channels involved.

We will first attend to our predictions and results regarding the signaller-based (articulator) perspective, and thus, multicomponent communication. Our results suggest that multicomponent communication may serve to reduce ambiguity, at least under certain circumstances (e.g. involving bodily acts). First and as predicted, we found that multicomponent acts (both uni- and multisensory), were more common in dyads other than mother–infant regardless of orang-utan species, but also more likely to be produced in Sumatran compared to Bornean orang-utans. The profound difference between mother-offspring and other interactions is arguably due to the high trust the signaller can have that the recipient is socially tolerant. This finding corroborates previous work on wild chimpanzees, demonstrating that purely visual, non-contact communication is more prevalent in interactions with less socially tolerant conspecifics45,46. As to the island difference, although orang-utans generally have fewer opportunities for social interactions than the African apes outside the mother-offspring bond (but see ref. 56 showing the overlap in solitariness between eastern chimpanzee females and North-West-Sumatran orang-utans), such social interactions are common in the populations of North-West Sumatra41,57, and to a lesser extent in some Bornean populations for mother–infant pairs of larger matrilineal clusters51,52. Social interactions with conspecifics beyond the matriline are rarer in Tuanan than in Suaq52, as are unpredictable outcomes of interactions that would require subtler communication from a larger distance. The environments that captive and wild Sumatran orang-utans inhabit, at least in this study, were also characterised by more frequent encounters with conspecifics and a thus probably a wider set of possible social partners see also52. Taken together, our results strikingly demonstrate that orang-utan signallers are able to flexibly adjust their signalling to specific recipients, in line with previous work on African apes e.g. refs. 46,58.

Second, and again in line with our prediction, multicomponent unisensory acts (e.g. bodily acts accompanied by other means of the same sensory modality) were more likely to be produced when the presumed goal of the interaction did not match the dominant interaction outcome of a particular communicative act. This finding suggests that constituent parts of multicomponent acts are non-redundant and thus may serve to refine the message17. Human and ape communication have in common that signals are not always tightly coupled with a given referent: meaning does not only depend on the communicative act that is being used but also on the interaction history, contextual information and social aspects of the interaction59,60,61. This ambiguity facilitates the production and reuse of simple, efficient signals when contextual and social aspects of the interaction aid in inferring a specific meaning61,62. Importantly, by combining articulators in social interactions, interactants are able to clarify their ambiguous main signals (e.g. speech acts in humans6,25).

Importantly, multicomponent communication in orang-utan consisted mainly of manual/bodily acts (potential gestures sensu63) associated with recipient-directed eye gaze (constituting gestures according to common definitions in comparative research), rather than with vocalisations or facial expressions. Multi-component acts involving vocalisations were rare, which was probably largely due to the overall rare use of vocalisation in orang-utan close-range communication10, but is also consistent with reports of the relatively rare use of gesture-vocalisation combinations in chimpanzees12,13 and bonobos14,16. It is important to note that gaze, even though it definitely has a communicative function, often acts as a social cue rather than an intentionally produced signal. However, we do know that orang-utans are capable of controlling their gaze for bouts of intentional communication47,48,64, suggesting that recipient-directed eye gaze serves as an important communicative articulator just as it does in humans. As an important component of social interactions, gaze can be directed at specific individuals (thereby being less ambiguous than auditory and olfactory signals), and may be used to predict another individual’s behaviour65. We speculate that unrelated orang-utans are generally much more unpredictable in their responses, so they may have a strong tendency to visually check the emotional and attentional state of their potential interaction partners.

Turning to the recipient’s (perception) perspective, in line with our expectation that the arboreal setting would impose particular communicative constraints, we found that multisensory uni-component communication was more commonly observed in wild than captive orang-utans (for Borneans, this setting contrast was also found for multisensory-multicomponent acts). Moreover, wild Bornean orang-utans more often used multisensory acts in their multicomponent communication than wild Sumatran orang-utans. Accordingly, for orang-utans the benefits of communicating in several sensory channels at once (as a backup strategy) at the expense of subtler communicative acts may be greater in the wild, where greater competition due to food scarcity may require facilitation of mutual understanding, and particularly among Bornean orang-utans.

Multisensory (uni-component) acts involving both visual and tactile components were more likely to receive apparently satisfactory responses (i.e. outcomes that resulted in the cessation of communication sensu11,63) than unisensory acts. At the same time, we found no evidence that multisensory acts predicted non-dominant interaction outcomes. Therefore, in orang-utans, multisensory communication seems to primarily enhance effectiveness rather than reducing ambiguity: communication through multiple sensory channels in orang-utans may facilitate detection and provide insurance that the message will be received, consistent with a redundancy function28.

Nevertheless, our results also demonstrate that multicomponent unisensory acts (at least those involving recipient-directed gaze) can be more effective than their uni-component constituent parts. It is probably not surprising that successful disambiguation also results in more appropriate responses, which suggests that effectiveness alone is not sufficient to disentangle hypotheses for the function of multimodal communication (i.e. inferring whether signals have redundant versus non-redundant components). Nonetheless, our findings are consistent with the notion that the redundancy function applies more to multisensory signalling and thus perception features of communicative acts, whereas refinement applies more to multicomponent signalling and thus production aspects (Fig. 8). This does not mean that signals consisting of non-redundant components may not also enhance responsiveness, which is consistent with studies showing that gaze-accompanied communicative acts receive faster responses4,5).

Fig. 8: Conceptual summary of findings.
figure 8

Our results suggest that refinement is the primary function of multicomponent communicative acts, whereas redundancy refers more to multisensory communicative acts.

We stress that these findings have to be viewed with some caution given that multisensory communication in our study mainly involved visual and tactile (rather than auditory and seismic components) in close-range interactions, and that we probably missed some low-amplitude auditory acts (e.g. vocalisations) due to environmental constraints (e.g. glass barriers in captivity or noisy surroundings in the field). However, the gestural repertoire of great apes has indeed been considered to be widely redundant60, and studies conducted in communities of wild chimpanzees66,67 suggest that both simultaneously and sequentially redundant signalling might play a particular role in certain developmental stages in apes, as a mechanism to learn context-appropriate communicative techniques67.

Although previous studies on great apes mainly focused on multicomponent communication (and specifically the function of gesture-vocal combinations), not all of these communicative acts may have actually also been multisensory (e.g. audible gestures plus vocalisation when recipients are turned away or out of sight, such as drumming displays associated with pant-hoots in chimpanzees.). Captive bonobos, but not chimpanzees, have been shown to be more responsive to multicomponent (i.e. gestures combined with facial/vocal signals) than uni-component communication despite its rare usage16. Moreover, male bonobos use the same vocalisation (i.e. contest-hoots) in playful and aggressive contexts but add gestures to distinguish between the two14. For wild chimpanzees, responses to combinations of gestures and vocalisations were more likely to match the response of the gestural than the vocal components13. Another study showed that wild chimpanzees, after presumed goals were not achieved, switched to gesture-vocalisation combinations only if the initially single signals were vocal12. Moreover, a recent study on semi-wild chimpanzees’ combinations of gestures and facial expressions showed that different combinations (i.e. stretched arm plus bared-teeth versus bent arm plus bared teeth) elicit different responses40. Thus, the evidence so far, including our own work, suggests that the combination of different articulators in great ape communication is apparently non-redundant, and serves to resolve ambiguity in the communicative act regardless of sensory modalities involved.

Multimodality seems to be functionally heterogeneous, which is also highlighted by the wealth of predictive frameworks that different behaviour researchers came up with9,17,29,30. If we split communicative acts by production and perception features, we get a clearer functional picture (Fig. 8): the integration of different articulators in a multicomponent act seems to primarily serve to disambiguate a message (i.e. specify meaning, as suggested by the refinement hypothesis)12,14,17, whereas the integration of different sensory modalities in a multisensory act serves to ensure that the message arrives (i.e. enhance effectiveness, as suggested by the redundancy hypothesis)28,33. This is consistent with human communication, in which multisensory (audio-visual) messages were shown to be processed faster, and gestural and facial acts accompanying spoken language serve to refine and disambiguate the message conveyed in speech acts6,25. Given that communicative acts can be both multicomponent and multisensory, it becomes clear that both functions can be served simultaneously.

The finding that functions of multisensory and multicomponent communication may differ depending on the specific sensory modalities and articulators involved demonstrates the importance of empirically distinguishing between these forms of communication. It is therefore important that comparative studies do not compare apples with oranges: the upsurge of multimodal study designs in primate communication is timely, but comparisons with human communication will be most fruitful if the difference between production and perception features of communicative acts is explicitly addressed. Implementing such a biological meaningful comparative approach to non-human species will comprise an invaluable tool to study the origins of the human multimodal communication system.

Methods

Study sites and subjects

Data were collected at two field sites and five captive facilities (zoos). We observed wild orang-utans at the long-term research sites of Suaq Balimbing (03°02′N; 97°25′E, Gunung Leuser National Park, South Aceh, Indonesia) and Tuanan (02°15′S; 114°44′E, Mawas Reserve, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia), inhabited by a population of wild Sumatran (Pongo abelii) and Bornean orang-utans (Pongo pygmaeus wurmbii), respectively. Both field sites consist mainly of peat swamp forest and show high orang-utan densities, with 7 individuals per km2 at Suaq and 4 at Tuanan68,69. Captive Bornean orang-utans were observed at the zoos of Cologne and Munster, and at Apenheul (Apeldoorn), while Sumatran orang-utans were observed at the zoo of Zurich and at Hellabrunn (Munich; see EEP studbook for details on captive groups70). While captive Sumatran orang-utans were housed in groups of nine individuals each, captive Bornean groups were generally smaller and sometimes included only a mother and her offspring (e.g. Apenheul). Signallers (i.e. individuals producing communicative acts) included in this study consisted of 33 Bornean (21 wild/12 captive) and 38 Sumatran orang-utans (20 wild/18 captive). All these subjects were also recipients (i.e. individuals at which communicative acts were directed) except for one wild Sumatran subject. In addition, 11 wild Sumatran orang-utans (mostly adults) were recipients but never signallers (see Supplementary Table S5 for detailed information on subjects).

Data collection

Focal observations were conducted between November 2017 and October 2018 (Suaq Balimbing: November 2017–October 2018; Tuanan: January 2018–July 2018, European zoos: January 2018–June 2018). At the two field sites, they consisted of full (nest-to-nest) or partial (e.g. nest-to-lost or found-to-nest) follows of mother–infant units, whereas in zoos 6-hour focal follows were conducted. Behavioural data were collected following an established protocol for orang-utan data collection (https://www.aim.uzh.ch/de/orangutannetwork/sfm.html), using focal scan sampling. All observers (M.F., N.B., C.F., C.W.) were trained to use this protocol and inter-observer reliability tests were conducted after each training phase. MF collected data at both field sites and two zoos ensuring the use of the same criteria during training (see ref. 71 for a recent study following the same procedure). Two different behavioural sampling methods were combined: First, intra-specific communicative interactions of all social interactions of the focal as signaller and as receiver with all partners, but also among other conspecifics present (if the focal was engaged in a non-social activity while still in full sight) were recorded using a digital High-Definition camera (Panasonic HC-VXF 999 or Canon Legria HF M41) with an external directional microphone (Sennheiser MKE600 or ME66/K6). In captive settings with glass barriers, we also used a Zoom H1 Audio recorder that was placed in background areas of the enclosure whenever possible, to enable the recording of audible communicative acts. Second, using instantaneous scan sampling at ten-minute intervals, we recorded complementary data on the activity of the focal individual, the distance and identity of all association partners, in case of social interactions the interaction partner as well as several other parameters. During ca. 1760 h of focal observations, we video-recorded more than 6300 social interactions which were subsequently screened for good enough quality to ensure video coding.

Ethical approval for our research on wild Bornean and Sumatran orang-utans was granted by the Indonesian State Ministry for Research and Technology (RISTEK, 398/SIP/FRP/E5/Dit.KI/XI/2017) and the Directorate General of Natural Resources and Ecosystem Conservation—Ministry of Environment & Forestry of Indonesia (KSDAE-KLHK, SI.70/SET/HKST/Kum.I/II/2017).

Video coding procedure

A total of 2655 high-quality video recordings of orang-utan interactions (wild: 1643, captive: 1012), which could each include multiple communicative acts, were coded using the programme BORIS version 7.0.4.72. We designed a coding scheme to enable the analysis of articulators and sensory modalities involved in presumably communicative acts directed at conspecifics (i.e. close-range social behaviours that apparently served to elicit a behavioural change in the recipient and were mechanically ineffective, thus excluding practical acts such as picking up an object or acts produced with physical force63,73; see also Table 1) and thus included potential gestures sensu63. Actions that were directed at observers or achieved their presumed goal sensu63 (apparent aim based on the individuals involved and the immediate social context) directly (e.g. nursing solicitations, infant collections) were thus excluded from the dataset. For each communicative act, we coded the following modifiers: body parts involved in production (e.g. hands or head), sensory modalities involved in perception (e.g. visual or tactile), presumed goal (e.g. share food/object, play/affiliate, co-locomotion, following the distinctions of ref. 63), gaze direction (e.g. recipient, object), recipient’s attentional state (e.g. faced towards signaller), and interaction outcome (e.g. apparently satisfactory outcome; see Supplementary Table S6 for levels and definitions of all coded variables). With regard to articulators analysed in this study (Table 1), manual communicative acts were movements executed with the limbs, bodily acts involved movements of the body, head or body postures, gaze was considered as a communicative act if it was recipient-directed or alternating between object and recipient, facial acts involved (visible) movements of the lower face (i.e. facial expressions), and vocal acts involved the (audible) movement of vocal folds (see also ref. 8).

To create mutually exclusive categories, we distinguished (1) uni-component unisensory acts (UC-US; one single articulator involved in the production, perceived through a single sensory modality), (2) multicomponent unisensory acts (MC-US; at least two different articulators simultaneously involved in the production, but perceived through a single sensory modality), (3) uni-component multisensory acts (UC-MS; i.e. at least two salient sensory modalities simultaneously involved in perception but produced with a single articulator), and (4) multicomponent, multisensory communicative acts (MC-MS; i.e. at least two salient sensory modalities simultaneously involved in perception and at least two articulators involved in production). We used the R package Venn Diagram74 to visualise the proportional composition of the dataset (Fig. 1).

Adopting the terminology of Hobaiter and Byrne11, we considered an outcome as apparently satisfactory if the signaller ceased communication and if it represented the signaller’s plausible social goal. The specific types of communicative acts comprising individual and group repertoires, as well as their interaction outcomes, are reported elsewhere75, but we used data on the dominant outcomes of communicative acts for a given research setting and orang-utan species for our test of the refinement hypothesis (Supplementary Table S7 and Supplementary Data S1).

After an initial training period of 2–4 weeks, and afterwards, in regular intervals (once a month), reliability of coding performance (using the established coding template) between at least two observers was evaluated with different sets of video recordings (10–20 clips each) using the Cohen’s Kappa coefficient to ensure inter-coder reliability76. Trained coders (M.F., N.B., C.F., C.W., L.M., M.J.) proceeded with video coding only if at least a good level (κ = 0.75) of the agreement was found for communicative act type, articulator, sensory modality, presumed goal, and interaction outcome. For further details on the distribution of coded interactions across species, settings and interaction dyads, see Supplementary Table S8.

Statistics and reproducibility

For the dataset of 7587 communicative acts resulting from the coding procedure, we used Generalised Linear Mixed Models77 with a binomial error structure and logit link function. We investigated sources of variation in four sets of response variables, referring to (a) the use of communicative acts produced with different articulators (manual, bodily, facial, vocal, recipient-directed gaze), (b) the use of communicative acts perceived via different sensory modalities (visual, tactile, auditory, seismic), (c) multicomponent and multisensory use of communicative acts, (d) effectiveness (i.e. whether or not the signaller received an apparently satisfactory response; sensu11,63), and (e) dominant outcome matching (i.e. whether or not the presumed goal sensu63 of a communicative act matched the major interaction outcome [i.e. share food/object, play/affiliate, co-locomote, stop action, sexual contact, or move away] associated with it; see Table 1, and Supplementary Data S1 for the dominant outcome of communicative acts for every setting and species75).

In models (a), (b), and (c), we included orang-utan species (2 levels: Bornean, Sumatran), research setting (2 levels: captive, wild), and kin relationship (3 levels: mother–infant [i.e. only including unweaned immatures], maternal kin, unrelated) as our key test predictors. Because we assumed that the effect of the research setting might depend on genetic predisposition (i.e. species), we included the interaction between these two variables in all models. To ensure valid comparisons within only one communicative perspective (i.e. production or perception) at a time, datasets included (i) only uni-component acts when testing the multisensory (MS-UC) versus unisensory (US-UC) use of uni-component acts, (ii) only unisensory acts when testing the multicomponent (MC-US) versus uni-component (UC-US) use of unisensory acts, (iii) only multicomponent acts when testing the multisensory (MS-MC) versus unisensory (US-MC) use of multicomponent acts, (iv) only multisensory acts when testing the multicomponent (MC-MS) versus uni-component (UC-MS) use of multisensory acts.

In models (d) and (e), we included multisensory (2 levels: visual/tactile only, visual/tactile plus other modality) or multicomponent use (2 levels: manual/bodily/gaze only, manual/bodily/gaze plus other articulator) as only key test predictor (communicative acts involving vocal, seismic, facial or vocal components were not common enough to allow inferential analyses; see Table 2). Analogous to the previous analyses, we considered only uni-component communicative acts when testing multisensory (MS-UC) versus unisensory (US-UC) use, and only unisensory acts when testing multicomponent (MC-US) versus uni-component (UC-US) use. We did not test effects of multicomponent-multisensory communication (MC-MS) on effectiveness and dominant outcome matches since these models did not have an acceptable stability (insufficient data for each condition).

As great ape dyadic interactions are also profoundly shaped by individual and social variables8,12, we included further fixed effects as control predictors in the models: subjects’ age class (3 levels: adult, older immature >5 years of age, young immature <5 years of age), sex (2 levels: female, male), and presumed goal (3 levels: share food/object, play/affiliate, other; as most orang-utan close-range interactions related to play or feeding; see also ref. 55). In models (d) and (e), species, setting and kin relationship (see above) were included as control predictors rather than key test predictors as in models (a) to (c). To control for repeated measurements, the identity of the dyad, the subject and the recipient were treated as random effects. We further included group identity, video file number (accounting for the fact that communicative acts of the same interaction are non-independent), and communicative act type (e.g. touch, raise limb etc.75) as random effects. To keep type 1 error rates at the nominal level of 5%, we also included relevant random slope components within-subject, the recipient and/or dyad identity78 (i.e. accounting for the non-independence of data points that pseudo-replicate slope information; depending on model stability, see below).

All models were implemented in R (v3.4.1 79) using the function glmer of the package lme480. To control for collinearity, we determined the Variance Inflation Factors (VIF 81) from a model including only the fixed main effects using the function vif of the package car82. This revealed collinearity to not be an issue (maximum VIF = 2.4). To estimate model stability, we excluded the levels of random effects one at a time, ran the models again and compared the resulting estimates derived with those obtained from the respective models based on all data (see also ref. 83). This revealed that all models were at least moderately stable, particularly for those estimates that were not close to zero (Supplementary Data S2). To test the overall significance of our key test predictors84, we compared the full models with the respective null models comprising only the control predictors and all random effects using a likelihood ratio test85. To adjust for multiple comparisons, we tested interaction effects using pairwise contrasts with the function lsmeans (with argument ‘adjust’ set to ‘sidak’) of the package lsmeans86. When non-significant, these interaction terms were removed before testing the individual fixed effects. Tests of the individual fixed effects were derived using likelihood ratio tests (function drop1 with argument ‘test’ set to ‘Chisq’).

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

The datasets supporting this article are available on GitHub87, definitions of all variables and factor levels are provided in Supplementary Table S9.

Code availability

The R code supporting this article is available on GitHub87. Statistical analyses were performed using R software (v3.4.1 79) and the following packages: lme4 (v1.1-25 80), car (v3.0-10 82), lsmeans (v2.30-0 86).

References

  1. Goldin-Meadow, S. The role of gesture in communication and thinking. Trends Cogn. Sci. 3, 419–429 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. McNeill, D. Language and Gesture (Cambridge University Press, 2000).

  3. Holle, H., Gunter, T. C., Rüschemeyer, S.-A., Hennenlotter, A. & Iacoboni, M. Neural correlates of the processing of co-speech gestures. NeuroImage 39, 2010–2024 (2008).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Stivers, T. et al. Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 10587–10592 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Holler, J., Kendrick, K. H. & Levinson, S. C. Processing language in face-to-face conversation: Questions with gestures get faster responses. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 25, 1900–1908 (2018).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Holler, J. & Levinson, S. C. Multimodal language processing in human communication. Trends Cogn. Sci. 23, 639–652 (2019).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Higham, J. P. & Hebets, E. A. An introduction to multimodal communication. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 67, 1381–1388 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Liebal, K., Waller, B. M., Burrows, A. M. & Slocombe, K. E. Primate Communication: A Multimodal Approach (Cambridge University Press, 2013).

  9. Partan, S. R. & Marler, P. Communication goes multimodal. Science 283, 1272–1273 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fröhlich, M., Lee, K., Mitra Setia, T., Schuppli, C. & van Schaik, C. P. The loud scratch: a newly identified gesture of Sumatran orangutan mothers in the wild. Biol. Lett. 15, 20190209 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hobaiter, C. & Byrne, RichardW. The meanings of chimpanzee gestures. Curr. Biol. 24, 1596–1600 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hobaiter, C., Byrne, R. W. & Zuberbühler, K. Wild chimpanzees’ use of single and combined vocal and gestural signals. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 71, 96 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wilke, C. et al. Production of and responses to unimodal and multimodal signals in wild chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii. Anim. Behav. 123, 305–316 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Genty, E., Clay, Z., Hobaiter, C. & Zuberbühler, K. Multi-modal use of a socially directed call in bonobos. PLoS ONE 9, e84738 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Slocombe, K. E., Waller, B. M. & Liebal, K. The language void: the need for multimodality in primate communication research. Anim. Behav. 81, 919–924 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pollick, A. S. & de Waal, F. B. M. Ape gestures and language evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 8184–8189 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fröhlich, M. & van Schaik, C. P. The function of primate multimodal communication. Anim. Cogn. 21, 619–629 (2018).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Guilford, T. & Dawkins, M. S. Receiver psychology and the evolution of animal signals. Anim. Behav. 42, 1–14 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rowe, C. Receiver psychology and the evolution of multicomponent signals. Anim. Behav. 58, 921–931 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ruxton, G. & Schaefer, H. Resolving current disagreements and ambiguities in the terminology of animal communication. J. Evol. Biol. 24, 2574–2585 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fröhlich, M., Sievers, C., Townsend, S. W., Gruber, T. & van Schaik, C. P. Multimodal communication and language origins: integrating gestures and vocalizations. Biol. Rev. 94, 1809–1829 (2019).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Özyürek, A. Hearing and seeing meaning in speech and gesture: insights from brain and behaviour. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 369, 20130296 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Holler, J. & Wilkin, K. Communicating common ground: How mutually shared knowledge influences speech and gesture in a narrative task. Lang. Cogn. Process. 24, 267–289 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Holler, J. et al. Eye’m talking to you: speakers’ gaze direction modulates co-speech gesture processing in the right MTG. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 10, 255–261 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Holle, H. & Gunter, T. C. The role of iconic gestures in speech disambiguation: ERP evidence. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 19, 1175–1192 (2007).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. McGurk, H. & MacDonald, J. Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature 264, 746–748 (1976).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hage, S. R. & Nieder, A. Dual neural network model for the evolution of speech and language. Trends Neurosci. 39, 813–829 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Johnstone, R. A. Multiple displays in animal communication: ‘backup signals’ and ‘multiple messages’. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 351, 329–338 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hebets, E. A. & Papaj, D. R. Complex signal function: developing a framework of testable hypotheses. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 57, 197–214 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Partan, S. R. & Marler, P. Issues in the classification of multimodal communication signals. Am. Nat. 166, 231–245 (2005).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. de Jong, K., Amorim, M. C. P., Fonseca, P. J. & Heubel, K. U. Noise affects multimodal communication during courtship in a marine fish. Front. Ecol. Evol. 6, 113 (2018).

  32. Grafe, T. U. et al. Multimodal communication in a noisy environment: a case study of the Bornean rock frog Staurois parvus. PLoS ONE 7, e37965 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Micheletta, J., Engelhardt, A., Matthews, L. E. E., Agil, M. & Waller, B. M. Multicomponent and multimodal lipsmacking in crested macaques (Macaca nigra). Am. J. Primatol. 75, 763–773 (2013).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Møller, A. & Pomiankowski, A. Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 32, 167–176 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Zuk, M., Ligon, J. D. & Thornhill, R. Effects of experimental manipulation of male secondary sex characters on female mate preference in red jungle fowl. Anim. Behav. 44, 999–1006 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Jawor, J. M., Gray, N., Beall, S. M. & Breitwisch, R. Multiple ornaments correlate with aspects of condition and behaviour in female northern cardinals, Cardinalis cardinalis. Anim. Behav. 67, 875–882 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Wedekind, C., Meyer, P., Frischknecht, M., Niggli, U. A. & Pfander, H. Different carotenoids and potential information content of red coloration of male three-spined stickleback. J. Chem. Ecol. 24, 787–801 (1998).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Michelsen, A., Andersen, B. B., Storm, J., Kirchner, W. H. & Lindauer, M. How honeybees perceive communication dances, studied by means of a mechanical model. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 30, 143–150 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rybak, F., Sureau, G. & Aubin, T. Functional coupling of acoustic and chemical signals in the courtship behaviour of the male Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 269, 695–701 (2002).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Oña, L. S., Sandler, W. & Liebal, K. A stepping stone to compositionality in chimpanzee communication. PeerJ 7, e7623 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. van Schaik, C. P. The socioecology of fission-fusion sociality in orangutans. Primates 40, 69–86 (1999).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Roth, T. S., Rianti, P., Fredriksson, G. M., Wich, S. A. & Nowak, M. G. Grouping behavior of Sumatran orangutans (Pongo abelii) and Tapanuli orangutans (Pongo tapanuliensis) living in forest with low fruit abundance. Am. J. Primatol. n/a, e23123 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Weingrill, T., Willems, E. P., Zimmermann, N., Steinmetz, H. & Heistermann, M. Species-specific patterns in fecal glucocorticoid and androgen levels in zoo-living orangutans (Pongo spp.). Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 172, 446–457 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Maple, T. L. Orangutan Behavior (Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1980).

  45. Fröhlich, M., Müller, G., Zeiträg, C., Wittig, R. M. & Pika, S. Begging and social tolerance: food solicitation tactics in young chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in the wild. Evol. Hum. Behav. 41, 126–135 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Fröhlich, M., Wittig, R. M. & Pika, S. Play-solicitation gestures in chimpanzees in the wild: flexible adjustment to social circumstances and individual matrices. R. Soc. Open Sci. 3, 160278 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Bard, K. A. Intentional behavior and intentional communication in young free-ranging orangutans. Child Dev. 63, 1186–1197 (1992).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Knox, A. et al. Gesture use in communication between mothers and offspring in wild orang-utans (Pongo pygmaeus wurmbii) from the Sabangau Peat-Swamp Forest, Borneo. Int. J. Primatol. 40, 393–416 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. MacKinnon, J. The behaviour and ecology of wild orang-utans (Pongo pygmaeus). Anim. Behav. 22, 3–74 (1974).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Sugardjito, J., Te Boekhorst, I. & Van Hooff, J. Ecological constraints on the grouping of wild orang-utans (Pongo pygmaeus) in the Gunung Leuser National Park, Sumatra, Indonesia. Int. J. Primatol. 8, 17–41 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. van Noordwijk, M. A. et al. Female philopatry and its social benefits among Bornean orangutans. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 66, 823–834 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Fröhlich, M. et al. Social interactions and interaction partners in infant orang-utans of two wild populations. Anim. Behav. 166, 183–191 (2020).

  53. Schuppli, C. et al. The effects of sociability on exploratory tendency and innovation repertoires in wild Sumatran and Bornean orangutans. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–12 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Rijksen, H. D. A Fieldstudy on Sumatran orang utans (Pongo pygmaeus abelii, Lesson 1827): Ecology, Behaviour and Conservation (H. Veenman 1978).

  55. Liebal, K., Pika, S. & Tomasello, M. Gestural communication of orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). Gesture 6, 1–38 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Wich, S. A., Sterck, E. H. & Utami Atmoko, S. S. Are orang-utan females as solitary as chimpanzee females? Folia Primatol. 70, 23 (1999).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Mitra Setia, T., Delgado, R., Utami Atmoko, S., Singleton, I. & van Schaik, C. P. in Orangutans: Geographic Variation in Behavioral Ecology and Conservation (eds Wich, S. A., Utami Atmoko, S. S., Mitra Setia, T. & van Schaik, C. P.) 245–253 (Oxford University Press, 2009).

  58. Genty, E., Neumann, C. & Zuberbühler, K. Bonobos modify communication signals according to recipient familiarity. Sci. Rep. 5, 16442 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Clark, H. H. Using Language (Cambridge University Press, 1996).

  60. Byrne, R. W. et al. Great ape gestures: intentional communication with a rich set of innate signals. Anim. Cogn. 20, 755–769 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H. & Gibson, E. The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition 122, 280–291 (2012).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Bohn, M., Kachel, G. & Tomasello, M. Young children spontaneously recreate core properties of language in a new modality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 26072–26077 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Cartmill, E. & Byrne, R. Semantics of primate gestures: intentional meanings of orangutan gestures. Anim. Cogn. 13, 793–804 (2010).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Rossano, F. & Liebal, K. “Requests” and “Offers” in Orangutans and Human Infants. Requesting in Social Interaction 333–362 (2014).

  65. Emery, N. J. The eyes have it: the neuroethology, function and evolution of social gaze. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 24, 581–604 (2000).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Fröhlich, M., Wittig, R. M. & Pika, S. Should I stay or should I go? Initiation of joint travel in mother–infant dyads of two chimpanzee communities in the wild. Anim. Cogn. 19, 483–500 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Hobaiter, C. & Byrne, R. W. Serial gesturing by wild chimpanzees: Its nature and function for communication. Anim. Cogn. 14, 827–838 (2011).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Singleton, I., Knott, C., Morrogh-Bernard, H., Wich, S. & van Schaik, C. in Orangutans: Geographic Variation in Behavioral Ecology and Conservation (eds Wich, S. A., Utami Atmoko, S. S., Mitra Setia, T., & van Schaik, C. P.) 205–212 (Oxford University Press, 2009).

  69. Husson, S. J. et al. in Orangutans: Geographic Variation in Behavioral Ecology and Conservation (eds Wich, S. A., Utami Atmoko, S. S., Mitra Setia, T., & van Schaik, C. P.), 77–96 (Oxford University Press, 2009).

  70. Becker, C. EEP Studbook for Zoo-Housed Orang-utans (2016).

  71. Fröhlich, M. et al. Social interactions and interaction partners in infant orang-utans of two wild populations. Anim. Behav. 166, 183–191 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Friard, O. & Gamba, M. BORIS: a free, versatile open-source event-logging software for video/audio coding and live observations. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 1325–1330 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Call, J. & Tomasello, M. The Gestural Communication of Apes and Monkeys. (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007).

  74. Chen, H. & Boutros, P. C. VennDiagram: a package for the generation of highly-customizable Venn and Euler diagrams in R. BMC Bioinformatics 12, 35 (2011).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Fröhlich, M. et al. Wild-captive contrasts in communicative repertoires and functional specificity in orang-utans. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.1101.1119.426493 (2021).

  76. Bakeman, R. & Quera, V. Sequential Analysis and Observational Methods for the Behavioral Sciences (Cambridge University Press, 2011).

  77. Baayen, R. H. Analyzing Linguistic Data (Cambridge University Press, 2008).

  78. Schielzeth, H. & Forstmeier, W. Conclusions beyond support: overconfident estimates in mixed models. Behav. Ecol. 20, 416–420 (2009).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  79. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2020).

  80. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using Eigen and S4. R Package Version 1.1-7 (2014).

  81. Quinn, G. P. & Keough, M. J. Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists (Cambridge University Press, 2002).

  82. Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. An R Companion to Applied Regression 2nd edn (Sage, 2011).

  83. Nieuwenhuis, R., Te Grotenhuis, H. & Pelzer, B. Influence.ME: tools for detecting influential data in mixed effects models. R J. 4, 2 (2012).

  84. Forstmeier, W. & Schielzeth, H. Cryptic multiple hypotheses testing in linear models: overestimated effect sizes and the winner’s curse. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65, 47–55 (2011).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Dobson, A. J. An Introduction to Generalized Linear Models (Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2002).

  86. Lenth, R. V. Least-squares means: the R Package lsmeans. J. Stat. Softw. 69, 33 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Fröhlich, M. et al. Datasets and code: Multicomponent versus multisensory communicative acts in orang-utans. GitHub https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4882719 (2021).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Caroline Schuppli (Suaq), Erin Vogel and Suci Utami Atmoko (Tuanan), Kerstin Bartesch (Tierpark Hellabrunn), Claudia Rudolf von Rohr (Zoo Zürich), Alexander Sliwa (Kölner Zoo), Simone Sheka (Allwetterzoo Münster) and Thomas Bionda (Apenheul Primate Park) as well as all research staff and zoo keepers for a fruitful collaboration during this study. We gratefully acknowledge Clemens Becker for providing the EEP studbook, the Indonesian State Ministry for Research and Technology (RISTEK), the Indonesian Institute of Science (LIPI), the Directorate General of Natural Resources and Ecosystem Conservation—Ministry of Environment & Forestry of Indonesia (KSDAE-KLHK), the Ministry of Internal affairs, the Nature Conservation Agency of Central Kalimantan (BKSDA), the local governments in Central Kalimantan, the Kapuas Protection Forest Management Unit (KPHL), the Bornean Orang-utan Survival Foundation (BOSF) and MAWAS in Palangkaraya. Moreover, we thank Simone Pika and Eva Luef for providing some of the technical equipment, Santhosh Totagera for coding assistance, Uli Knief for statistical advice, as well as Alexander Hausmann and Roger Mundry for providing a customised jitter-plot and model stability function, respectively. Two anonymous reviewers provided very insightful comments during the review process. MF was generously supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation, grant FR 3986/1-1), the Forschungskredit Postdoc (grant FK-17-106) and the A.H. Schultz Foundation of the University of Zurich, the Sponsorship Society of the German Primate Center (DPZ), the Stiftung Mensch und Tier (Freiburg) and the Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard Foundation. C.v.S. acknowledges the support of the NCCR Evolving Language Programme (SNF #51NF40_180888).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

M.F. and C.P.v.S. conceived of the study. M.F. designed the project, collected, coded and analysed data. N.B., C.F., C.W., L.M. and M.J. helped to collect, curate and code data. T.M.S., M.A.v.N. and C.P.v.S. provided resources. M.F. wrote the manuscript with critical inputs from M.A.v.N. and C.P.v.S. All authors approved the submission of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marlen Fröhlich.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Communications Biology thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available. Primary Handling Editor: Luke R. Grinham.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fröhlich, M., Bartolotta, N., Fryns, C. et al. Multicomponent and multisensory communicative acts in orang-utans may serve different functions. Commun Biol 4, 917 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-021-02429-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-021-02429-y

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing