title: The cultural evolution of human communication systems in different sized populations: usability trumps learnability.
abstract: This study examines the intergenerational transfer of human communication systems. It tests if human communication systems evolve to be easy to learn or easy to use (or both), and how population size affects learnability and usability. Using an experimental-semiotic task, we find that human communication systems evolve to be easier to use (production efficiency and reproduction fidelity), but harder to learn (identification accuracy) for a second generation of naïve participants. Thus, usability trumps learnability. In addition, the communication systems that evolve in larger populations exhibit distinct advantages over those that evolve in smaller populations: the learnability loss (from the Initial signs) is more muted and the usability benefits are more pronounced. The usability benefits for human communication systems that evolve in a small and large population is explained through guided variation reducing sign complexity. The enhanced performance of the communication systems that evolve in larger populations is explained by the operation of a content bias acting on the larger pool of competing signs. The content bias selects for information-efficient iconic signs that aid learnability and enhance usability.
authors: School of Psychology, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia. nicolas.fay@gmail.com
authors: Nicolas
authors: N
authors: Fay
authors: T Mark
authors: TM
authors: Ellison
mesh_terms: D003142:Communication; D003468:Cultural Evolution; D006801:Humans; D007802:Language; D007858:Learning; D011156:Population Density
references: Front Psychol. 2010 Dec 31;1:227
references: 21833282
references: Nature. 2009 May 28;459(7246):564-8
references: 19412161
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Oct 30;109(44):17897-902
references: 23071337
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2010 Sep;14(9):411-7
references: 20675183
references: PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e57211
references: 23437343
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Mar 1;108(9):3526-9
references: 21278332
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2013 Mar 13;280(1758):20123073
references: 23486436
references: Cogn Sci. 2007 Nov 12;31(6):961-87
references: 21635324
references: PLoS One. 2010 Jan 20;5(1):e8559
references: 20098492
references: Cogn Sci. 2005 Sep 10;29(5):737-67
references: 21702792
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Aug 5;105(31):10681-6
references: 18667697
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2007 Apr;14(2):288-94
references: 17694915
references: Cogn Sci. 2013 Sep-Oct;37(7):1356-67
references: 23763661
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Aug 8;103(32):12203-8
references: 16882728
references: Cognition. 2013 Oct;129(1):70-87
references: 23831566
references: Cogn Sci. 2010 Sep;34(7):1131-57
references: 21564247
references: Behav Brain Sci. 2008 Oct;31(5):489-508; discussion 509-58
references: 18826669
references: Cognition. 2009 Nov;113(2):226-33
references: 19740461
references: Cognition. 1994 Dec;53(3):181-215
references: 7842633
references: Nature. 2000 Mar 30;404(6777):495-8
references: 10761917
references: Cognition. 1986 Feb;22(1):1-39
references: 3709088
references: Cogn Sci. 2010 Apr;34(3):351-86
references: 21564217
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 May 1;104(18):7361-6
references: 17449635
references: Cognition. 2010 Sep;116(3):444-9
references: 20615499
references: Lang Cogn Process. 2013 Mar 1;28(3):261-271
references: 23543899
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2006 Aug;10(8):347-9
references: 16828573
references: PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e43807
references: 22928039
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Jul;7(7):300-307
references: 12860188
references: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008 Nov 12;363(1509):3553-61
references: 18799421
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Jul;7(7):308-312
references: 12860189
references: Front Hum Neurosci. 2011 Feb 17;5:11
references: 21369364