MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414532870 · doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2025.105276

A cost-effective Raspberry Pi-based operant playback setup to evaluate auditory preferences in songbirds

2025· article· en· W4414532870 on OpenAlexafffund
Prateek K. Sahu, Katharine Stenstrom, Moriah J Deimeke, Sarah M L Smeltz, Isaac J Lank, Christopher B. Sturdy

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioural Processes · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta IngenuityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsCanada Foundation for InnovationUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsPreferenceHabituationOperant conditioningNoveltySparrowRange (aeronautics)ForagingLimitingTask (project management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preferences arise from the interplay of biological processes, past experiences, and environmental factors that shape decision-making and adaptive behaviour. Song preference is integral to cognitive processes and song learning in songbirds. Traditionally, measuring song preferences in the lab has required expensive commercial equipment, limiting accessibility and adaptability. The past decade, however, has seen an increase in the development and use of low-cost DIY equipment that can be used for research. Here, we built a cost-effective operant audio playback system using a Raspberry Pi Zero 2 W. We validated the operant audio playback system using a conspecific-heterospecific song preference task with black-capped chickadees (Poecilia atricapillus). Our system allows the birds to self-select acoustic stimuli through perch-hopping while automatically recording their behaviour. Birds chose between conspecific black-capped chickadee fee-bee songs vs heterospecific white-throated sparrow songs. We did not find evidence that birds prefer conspecific (predicted probability 44 %, with 90 % CI [22 %-72 %]) over heterospecific songs from our limited sample size. Several factors may have contributed to this outcome, including the testing of wild-caught birds in a laboratory environment, the novelty or acoustic similarity of the stimuli, and potential habituation over time. Preference dynamics also varied across individuals, possibly reflecting differences in age or prior experiences. Nevertheless, birds readily engaged with the operant preference testing system, validating the setup and paving the way for a wide range of future research questions. The operant preference setup is made with affordable parts and open-source software, offering similar features to commercial systems but at a lower cost.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioural ProcessesSame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207