Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Apr 17;21(4):e0346830. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0346830

Name use by companion parrots

Lauryn Benedict 1,*, Viktoria Groiss 2, Marisa Hoeschele 3, Eva Reinisch 3, Christine R Dahlin 4
Editor: Javed Iqbal5
PMCID: PMC13089708  PMID: 41996408

Abstract

Humans organize social interactions in part by referring to others using proper names (hereafter “names”). Names might also facilitate the complex social lives of animals. Several animal species produce name-like signature sounds in nature and can vocally target interaction partners, but researchers hesitate to equate these sounds with the human linguistic concept of a name. A more direct way to ask if diverse species can learn names and use them appropriately is with animals that learn human words and phrases. Accordingly, we used survey data to determine whether parrots that live with humans regularly learn names and can potentially use them as individual vocal labels for people and animals. Survey takers were asked about word and phrase use by companion parrots; 47% of reports on 884 birds included examples of name use, with those 413 parrots speaking 802 phrases that included names. For a subset of these individuals, survey-takers provided contextual information that allowed us to assess whether parrots used names in ways consistent with vocal labeling. Parrots used names in a range of social situations, including greetings, separations, and when seeking attention. Reports on 88 different birds of 30 species suggested that parrots applied names appropriately as vocal labels for humans and animals, with strong evidence that some birds applied names only to single individuals and not as category labels. At the same time, many parrots used names in contexts outside of typical human linguistic conventions, such as seeking attention by vocalizing their own name. Results indicate that captive parrots learn and use names in a variety of situations, sometimes applying them as vocal labels when communicating with or about others. This suggests that parrots have the cognitive and vocal capacity to use names but leaves many open questions about how animals label individuals using vocal signals.

Introduction

All human languages use proper names for individual people, places, and things [1]. In English (and many other languages), proper names are a type of label distinguished from other labels by their classification as proper nouns that each reference a single entity and are capitalized when written [2]. Proper names for people are learned vocal labels (sometimes called personal names) and are used by humans to organize social interactions both when speaking to someone and when speaking about someone, thereby recognizing the individuality of that person [13]. Human proper names are used similarly by multiple people within a social group, and they refer to an individual even when that person is not present [2]. Evidence suggests that proper names are learned differently from category labels, and require unique cognitive processing [4,5].

Biologists have looked for evidence of proper name use among a range of non-human species, debating whether or not animals use names for each other [610]. In line with previous animal behavior literature that generally uses the term “name” to represent proper names, we hereafter do the same. Although no researchers have found unequivocal name use among wild animals, they have demonstrated that animals have a range of strategies for acoustically identifying and addressing individuals in their social groups [68,10]. Diverse species can recognize individuals by the acoustic properties of their vocalizations (much as humans do when recognizing voices) [1114]. Unlike name use, however, this ability allows a listener to recognize the vocalizing individual but does not allow a signaler to target a particular receiver. Egyptian fruit bat (Rousettus aegyptiacus) vocalizations contain information in their spectral structure that can identify both the sender and receiver of the call [15]. African elephant (Loxodonta Africana) vocalizations are sometimes used to address certain individuals, but researchers have been unable to isolate specific call features or standalone sound units that consistently identify individuals [8]. Marmosets modify the structure of “phee” calls according to their interaction partner in ways that allow for vocal labeling [10]. Parrots and dolphins have individual signature sounds that can be imitated by group-mates to refer to and address individuals [1618]. Thus, all of these species have vocal elements that help animals target particular signal recipients, but researchers have generally not called these vocal signatures names [19]. This does not discount the possibility that animals can use names for individuals but to date we have not found names conclusively in wild populations, likely because we still have a very imperfect understanding of the information content conveyed via many animal signals [20].

One way to circumvent the challenges of understanding wild animal vocalizations is to test whether animals can readily learn, recognize, and use names as vocal labels within the framework of human language. Domestic animals of many species respond behaviorally to their own names, suggesting an ability to recognize human naming conventions [21]. Animals including dogs (Canis familiaris) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) can respond to (but not produce) acoustic labels for individuals and for hundreds of unique objects, with research identifying some physiological bases of name recognition [22,23]. Such studies suggest that animals of diverse species can identify individuals (or objects) by name, much the same way that humans do.

Although many animals respond to human language, only a small number of species can learn to produce language-like sounds or use those sounds appropriately [24,25]. In particular, parrots are excellent at learning vocalizations, including human words, and can correctly apply words as labels [2630]. This capacity for vocal production learning allows researchers to examine whether and how animals use vocal labels, rather than just respond to them, which provides a richer picture of the cognitive aspects of word use and labeling. Focused studies of grey parrots have shown that they incorporate their own names and the names of people and animals into their vocal repertoires, sometimes combining names with other words into multiple phrases [28,31]. Grey parrots recognize that parts of speech are distinct sounds that can refer to different concepts and can be recombined to create new meanings [32,33]. Together, these data suggest that grey parrots have the capacity to understand and appropriately use names. It is, however, unclear whether grey parrots are unusual in their ability to vocally label individuals using human naming conventions.

Research on the topic of name use by animals is generally limited to single-species studies with relatively small sample sizes, and many authors hesitate to conclude that documented vocal labels are names [8,28,31,3335]. Large data sets provide the opportunity to assess potential name use by members of multiple species in many contexts. Further, studying name use within the framework of human language offers an accessible method for determining whether animals learn and use names as acoustic labels for individuals, as humans do [2]. Here we present a large-scale study describing how often parrots that live in companionship with humans learn names and when they use names around people and other animals. We assessed name use by parrots based on a survey of over one thousand companion birds, with relevant data reported for almost 900. We examined rates and contexts of name use among companion parrots of multiple species, and we looked for evidence that parrots correctly applied names as individual vocal labels. Our survey approach allowed for a broad, multi-species assessment of vocal labeling with clearly identifiable names.

Materials and methods

Data were collected between October 5, 2020 and August 1, 2024 via the “What Does Polly Say? survey which asked people to report on their companion parrots ([21], https://www.manyparrots.org/). All research was conducted in accordance with University of Northern Colorado Institutional Review board policies with informed consent. Survey-takers voluntarily provided data via an online text-entry form and were informed that they could stop or withdraw at any time before submitting their responses. As this research involved only survey responses from humans about parrots, it did not require IACUC or IRB approval.

During our sampling period we collected reports on 1202 parrots of 89 total species. The survey asked for the names of the survey-taker and parrot, and included the following prompts: 1) “*Optional* Please list some of the words or phrases your parrot uses and their contexts” and 2) “Is there anything else you would like to tell us?” Some participants provided freeform answers to these prompts, listing words and phrases used by companion parrots of 78 species (S1 Table), often including names. When survey-takers answered the prompts above, we extracted all phrases that included recognizable human-created names or nicknames from the dataset. Included names a priori matched the general linguistic criteria of being proper nouns that multiple individuals would use to label a single individual. Our study included names used for people and for animals; we noted and excluded proper names that referred to objects or brands (i.e., Amazon Alexa, pet food brand names).

We examined what types of individual names birds learned and whether they used them in appropriate human contexts. To do that, we scored all parrot phrases that contained names for the name referent type and phrase use context as detailed in Tables 1 and 2. To create the name type and context categories we initially surveyed that data set for obvious category groupings. This led us to classify name types into four categories: the name of the vocalizing bird, name of a person, name of a companion bird, and the name of a non-bird pet (Table 1). We also included an unknown category when no referent was provided (Table 1). When birds used multiple names or nicknames for the same individual, they were all scored as being names for that referent.

Table 1. Categories of name types used by parrots in spoken phrases.

Name type Definition
Name of bird The bird’s own name or a variant of it, including nicknames, as indicated by the respondent or based on a match with the parrot’s name
Name of person The name or nickname of a human, as indicated by the respondent or based on a match with the name of the survey-taker
Name of companion bird The name or nickname of another bird, as indicated by the respondent
Name of pet The name or nickname of a pet other than a companion bird, as indicated by the respondent
Unknown name A recognizable name but with no referent described

Table 2. Context categories for parrot phrases that contained names.

Specific Context Definition
Greeting The bird is reported to say this phrase containing a name when a human or animal arrives or is seen by the bird
Separation The bird is reported to say this phrase containing a name when someone departs, is absent, or the bird goes to bed
Attention The bird is reported to say this phrase containing a name to get attention from a human or animal
Request The bird is reported to say this phrase containing a name when it wants something besides attention
Social The bird is reported to say this phrase containing a name in social contexts that do not match the more specific categories above. This category includes talking to other pets (example: “when telling the dog to be quiet”), answering human prompts or questions (example: “when asked ‘what’s your name’”), and in other social interactions
Personal The bird is reported to say this phrase containing a name when alone or not in an obviously social context (examples: “when it’s raining” or “when he is angry”)
General Context
Vocal Label The bird is reported to use names as individual vocal labels, but specific context is not indicated (example: “Can call everyone in the house by first name”)

We classified phrase use context into six specific categories (greeting, separation, attention, request, social, and personal) that described when or how the bird was reported to use each phrase containing a name (Table 2). Context was not assigned based on the semantic content of the phrase, but rather on the contextual use of that phrase reported by survey-takers; generally, this was reported as part of a “when” phrase. For example, a bird [686] that says “goodnight [name]” “when I leave her room for the night” was scored in the separation context, but a different bird [56] that says “goodnight [name]” “when meeting people” was scored in the greeting context (S2 Table). In some cases, survey respondents stated that the bird used a name correctly as a vocal label without describing the specific context. In those cases, we accepted that name was used as a “vocal label” and coded it as such (Table 2).

After creating the type and context categories and extracting all instances of name use, an observer scored the phrases containing names extracted from the data set for name type and context, following the definitions in Tables 1 and 2. A second observer checked those scores to verify the categorizations and a third observer resolved the small number of discrepancies. These observers then reviewed the data using a two-tiered system to examine whether the dataset contained evidence of parrots using names as appropriate and individualized vocal labels (Fig 1). We ensured that multiple people scored all phrases and came to consensus about each name type and context to improve coding reliability.

Fig 1. Scoring scheme for appropriate and individualized name use by parrots, as reported by their human companions.

Fig 1

A parrot was scored as using a name “appropriately” if it was reported to use the name or nickname to correctly refer to a person or animal (i.e., saying “quiet Rufus” to a dog named Rufus when it barks). We note that this type of name usage does not necessarily imply that the parrot understands all parts of the phrase; it only recognizes that the bird uses the name phrase consistently in contexts that address or refer to the individual with that name. All instances of appropriate name use were additionally scored for “individualized” name use. A parrot was considered to use a name in an individualized fashion when survey-takers indicated that the parrot applied a proper name or nickname appropriately only to a single individual despite interaction with multiple individuals of that type (i.e., saying “quiet [name]” to different dogs when they bark and using the correct names for each). In these contexts, the use of that name was clearly not applied to a class of individuals or simply as part of a non-personalized phrase (e.g., “quiet Rufus” is not used generally to tell others to “be quiet”). Most examples of “individualized” name use came when a parrot substituted varied names into a longer phrase as appropriate, responded to or labeled multiple individuals, or when they asked for someone who was not present (suggesting an awareness of that individual’s absence). We scored examples of ”appropriate” and “individualized” name use to provide baseline evidence that parrots can use names to correctly communicate with or about individual humans and animals.

A phrase was coded as appropriate name use when two of three scorers rated it as such. Two people then scored all phrases with appropriate name use for individualized name use and came to a consensus about whether each one represented individualized use of a proper name. Because survey-takers provided varying amounts of information about each bird and each vocalization (S2 Table), scoring for appropriate and individualized name use by parrots was not always clear cut. By having multiple coders and seeking agreement between them based on the above definitions, we ensured that our scoring was as standardized as possible, but we acknowledge that all scores are subjective. We further point out that the dataset is not perfectly representative of parrot name use, as survey respondents are more likely to report on vocalizations with meaning to them. Additionally, context information provided by the survey respondents may include biases in human interpretation of each parrot vocalization. Therefore, reports of correct, individualized name use do not unequivocally demonstrate that parrots understand names as vocal labels, but they offer a first step towards assessing this ability across a wide range of parrots. The scope of our survey-based sampling allowed for data collection on many more species than have been examined using more tightly controlled research methods.

We compiled descriptive statistics and rates of name use by parrots in varied contexts. We report those below along with examples of name use by parrots.

Results

Survey participants reported on 1202 parrots and provided words and phrases used by 884 different birds, with names included in the examples for 413 of these (S2 Table). Thus, name examples came from 47% of all birds for which we had word and phrase use data. This reporting rate indicates widespread use of names by parrots that mimic human language, especially given that 47% is a minimum estimate because survey respondents did not provide full repertoires for each bird. Parrots reported to say names came from 63 different species, 81% of the 78 species for which words or phrases were reported (S1 Table).

Among the 413 parrots that used names, survey takers reported 801 example phrases that included human or animal names. Individual parrots of many species were reported to use multiple different phrases that included names for people and animals (Table 3). Some of these were names as stand-alone phrases, and others included a name in addition to other words (S2 Table). Ninety-six parrots from 40 species used more than one phrase that included the same name paired with other human words (i.e., “hi Polly” and “bedtime for Polly”). One hundred and forty-five parrots of 44 species were reported to use more than one unique name, often their own name plus the name(s) of humans and other pets in the household. Many parrots also used multiple variants of a name or nicknames, similarly to human use of nicknames. We were unable to conclusively identify all nicknames from the data provided, but a conservative estimate is that at least 26 parrots from 19 species used nicknames, as we saw obvious name modifications in different phrases from those individuals (i.e., [618] “Quince!” and “The Quincenator”). Twenty-six parrots of fifteen species used four or more different names (including nicknames) in their phrases with one knowing at least nine individual names.

Table 3. Number of birds reported to use 1-6 + unique phrases containing names (Range 1-12 phrases).

# Name phrases # birds # species
1 223 50
2 91 32
3 50 26
4 31 18
5 9 8
6+ 10 5

Most name phrases used by parrots included their own names, but many birds were also regularly reported to use the names of humans, other birds, and non-avian pets (primarily dogs; Table 4). Some parrots were reported to use proper names for objects such as Amazon’s Alexa (4 birds), individual toys (1 bird), or food brand names (1 bird), but we coded those as object labels and excluded them from summary analyses. Interestingly, no parrots were reported to use proper names for places (e.g., Austria), a type of proper name that humans use frequently [2].

Table 4. Name type category assignments indicating the number of reported phrases that contained each name type and the number of birds and species that used each name type.

Name Type # phrases # birds # species
Name of bird 413 280 55
Name of person 166 124 22
Name of companion bird 66 43 36
Name of pet 56 39 14
Unknown name 100 72 25
Total 801 413*

*413 parrots were reported to use names – this column sums to 558 because many birds used names of multiple types.

Survey respondents provided specific context information for 230 reported name phrases and indicated that another 43 were used as vocal labels (see Table 2 for definitions) (Table 5). Parrots were reported to use phrases containing names in a range of social situations, including when seeking attention or objects, greeting others, or separating from others (Table 5).

Table 5. Context use assignments for all phrases, birds, and species for which name use context was provided by survey-takers.

Context # phrases # birds # species
Greeting 38 32 17
Separation 39 29 12
Attention 34 32 19
Request 21 17 11
Social 80 57 29
Personal 18 15 11
Vocal label 43 29 14
Total 273 170*

*Name use contexts were reported for 170 parrots – this column sums to 211 because some birds used names in multiple contexts

Parrots used all name types in most of our contextual categories (Fig 2). In greeting, separation, attention, and request contexts, parrots most often used their own names and the names of people (Fig 2). Other types of social interactions prompted a range of name type use, as did vocal labeling (Fig 2). Parrots were regularly reported to use names in incorrect human contexts (Fig 2). For example, many birds said their own names when seeking attention or in greetings (Fig 2). Often these phrases appeared to be mimicry of phrases that humans use to get the attention of or greet the bird. For example, many birds said “Hi [bird’s own name]” when greeting someone. Other birds used names as vocal labels for classes of individuals rather than single individuals; for example, using the name of one dog to refer to another dog or all dogs. In some cases, survey-takers reported directed communication towards a receiver that didn’t involve names, such as using a “flock whistle” with certain communication partners. Similarly, a bird might say the same phrase (its own name) in a voice that mimicked different humans when it interacted with each of them. These examples represent individualized communication but not name use as defined in this study.

Fig 2. Number of parrots that used each name type in each contextual category for all reported name vocalizations with context (left) and for appropriate name use (right).

Fig 2

Although many names were used by parrots incorrectly or ambiguously, others were reported to be applied correctly. We identified 131 examples of appropriate name use from 88 different parrots of 30 species. This represents 48% of the phrases for which context was scored, 52% of individuals with name phrase contexts reported, and 68% of species with name phrase contexts reported. Most appropriate name use came when parrots referred to other individuals, including humans and animals (Fig 2). This stands in contrast to the total set of name phrases, which predominantly included the parrots’ own names (Fig 2). When using names appropriately to seek attention or greet and separate from others, parrots most often used the names of people (Fig 2). Examples included parrots using names for humans, other birds, non-bird animals, and themselves appropriately in a variety of social interactions (Fig 2, S2 Table).

Among the appropriately used name phrases, we coded 69 examples of individualized name use from 42 parrots of 19 species. For some of these examples, survey takers indicated something general like “Polly uses the names of all household members correctly” (context coded as “vocal label”) while others provided specific context that indicated individualized name use. For example, one parrot said “quiet [parrot name]” to multiple other parrots in its flock as appropriate when each made noise (context coded as “social”). Others called multiple individuals (often dogs and/or humans) by name when they saw them (context coded as “greeting”) or wanted attention (context coded as “attention”). Several birds were reported to learn the names of visitors (humans and birds) and use them correctly. At least ten birds were reported to ask for specific people by name only when they were not present (context coded as “separation”), suggesting individual and situational awareness in name use plus a concept of individual permanence. One parrot that used its own name in social interactions was reported to correct people who called it the wrong name by telling them its name.

Most species in our dataset were represented by fewer than 10 birds for which we had name use context information (S2 Table). For five species, however, we sampled at least ten birds that used names in stated contexts. Table 6 shows the percentage of individuals of each species for which context descriptions indicated appropriate and individualized name use. Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus) had higher rates of appropriate and individualized name use than other species.

Table 6. Rates of appropriate and individualized name use among species in which contexts were reported for at least ten birds.

Species n % with appropriate name use % with individualized name use
Amazona aestiva 10 30% 0%
Amazona oratrix 11 45% 18%
Myiopsitta monachus 12 42% 17%
Psittacus erithacus 45 67% 38%
Pyrrhura molinae 14 36% 7%

Discussion

Our survey of human vocal mimicry by parrots revealed widespread learning of names. Parrots can learn to pronounce the names of multiple social companions in human languages (primarily English for this data set). This allowed us to assess how parrots of many species use names, revealing that they learn to say their own names as well as the names of humans and animals. Many parrots in the survey clearly learned to mimic names without understanding them as vocal labels (e.g., treating the name as part of a greeting), but many others used names in appropriate contexts and were reported to apply them correctly as individual identifiers. Results are concordant with other research on parrot word use and consistent with the idea that animals are capable of using names as vocal labels, as has been hypothesized to occur among wild animals [31,36].

Names are ubiquitous in human social groups and each name is a distinctive referential set of sounds that all group members apply to one individual [1,33]. Children learn to distinguish proper names from object category labels early in life, reinforcing the conceptual and cognitive distinctiveness of names [3739]. In this study, we identified names vocalized by hundreds of parrots of 63 different species. The frequency with which names appeared in our dataset suggests that they are in some way salient to parrots who live with humans. We were unable to control for the social and learning environments of our subjects, making it difficult to know why so many birds learned names, but we expect that names represent an important part of human-parrot communication. Our results fit with a previous study which found that names represent more than a quarter of the units in grey parrot vocabularies, a rate similar to what is seen in young children [31]. When considering that parrots are likely exposed to much less language teaching and enrichment than children are [40], this highlights the importance of names, and thus individual recognition and labeling in human-parrot vocal interactions.

Parrots in our study population most often said their own names and regularly used the names of people and animals, but never learned other types of proper names, such as place names. This likely reflects name use patterns by the humans who interact with parrots. Humans undoubtedly say their parrots’ names to those individuals frequently, providing extensive opportunity and targeted communication within which parrots learn their names. The names of humans and other pets are less likely to be said to parrots directly, and many of the name phrases used by parrots implied that they learned them from listening to humans talking to each other or to animals. For example, a parrot that says “quiet [name of dog]” when the dog barks most likely learned from a human who was directing their speech at the dog. Thus, our results suggest that parrots learn names both when humans are directly interacting with them and by eavesdropping on other communication pairings. This matches observations showing that grey parrots can learn language directly from a trainer or from a model interacting with the trainer, where the bird was an observer [41]. Some of the name phrases in our dataset were likely not intentionally taught (for example, “Quiet [dog name]” or “Alexa order water”), highlighting the ability of parrots to independently learn names as parts of speech, and to learn by eavesdropping on communication events that don’t target them as a receiver. This skill is expected to be valuable in natural settings where individuals integrating into new social flocks must learn local dialects and contact calls by listening to established flock members as they signal to each other [42,43].

Our data revealed that parrots use names in varied ways, most of them relating to social interactions, whether that be greetings and separations or responding to social cues and vocal prompts. Very few parrots used phrases that included names to refer to the world at large, for example by learning place names. We also collected limited examples of parrots using names in non-social “personal” contexts, such as saying their own name when they make a particular movement. This pattern matches the expectation that individual vocal labels are an important mechanism of social communication [8,16]. At the same time, this pattern might reflect biases in reporting by humans who tend to report examples of name use that are most salient in human interaction contexts.

Many parrots in our sample learned to say the names of several other individuals and even used nicknames, such that they might know multiple names for one individual. Further research in controlled settings should investigate whether parrots can appropriately use multiple vocal labels for one individual, as nicknames would suggest. Names were sometimes used by parrots in our data set as standalone phrases and sometimes as parts of longer phrases. Thus, further research should also investigate if and when parrots recognize the name subunits of their spoken phrases as separate from the phrases as a whole. Captive grey parrots can understand naming conventions and segment phrases into parts [28,32]. Segmenting phrases into parts has rarely been examined among other non-human animals, but may be important in natural parrot vocalizations, as consonant- and vowel-like subcomponents have been observed within individual budgerigar song notes, and wild yellow-naped amazons follow syntactical rules during duet interactions [4446].

All of the names and name phrases we documented among parrots might be merely mimicked with no cognitive understanding of what a name is or, alternatively, might represent true vocal labeling. By matching contextual name use with phrase content we sought evidence that names represent specific individuals in the minds of the parrots. For most name phrases in our data set we lacked context information and were therefore unable to determine if parrots used them appropriately. For other phrases we had evidence that parrots did not use names as correct referential labels; only about half of name phrases with context provided were reported to be used appropriately. Thus, parrots often learn to mimic the sounds of names without understanding their typical human meanings, and survey-takers regularly reported that. We posit that some of these “mistakes” might represent situations where parrots learned to use names in ways that are functional, even if not semantically correct or reflective of human learning patterns. For example, parrots used their own names in many phrases with an “attention” context. This result is similar to that of a previous study which found that the names most commonly used by grey parrots are their own [31]. Although a parrot that says its own name when it wants attention is not using the name in a typical adult human linguistic context, the name still provides a benefit to the bird if its human responds with attention. In this way, much of the “inappropriate” name use reported by survey takers could be functional to the parrot in promoting desired social interactions, reflecting the substantial vocal and social learning abilities of parrots [47,48]. In addition, this type of third-person self-reference (illeism) is characteristic of very young children, which often go through a period of referring to themselves by their own name, possibly due to the difficulty of mastering pronouns [49]. Parents will also naturally use third-person speech when communicating with young children to simplify language and aid learning [50]. The possibility that parrots may be using names in a manner akin to that of young children warrants further research. Interestingly, this type of self-labeling also resembles the behavior of wild parrots and dolphins, in which individually distinctive, self-identifying vocal signatures have been documented in several species and are most often produced by the referent [18,5153].

While not all companion parrots in our data set were reported to use proper names following human language conventions, many did (about half of all individuals for which we had contextual use information). Parrots of 30 species were reported to use names appropriately, with grey parrots showing the strongest tendencies towards correct name use. Thus, our data offer preliminary evidence that parrots of diverse species may understand the concept of a name as it is used by humans, and that species differences may exist in learning and cognition as it relates to individual labeling [3,26,41]. It also lends support to the previously demonstrated ideas that parrots can recognize the individuality of others and are conscious of themselves as unique beings [5456]. In the cases we documented, the names used were vocal labels widely recognizable to humans, and many of the birds indicated individualized name use by substituting multiple names into a phrase following human linguistic conventions. For example, one bird said “goodnight [name]” to each flock mate as they were put to bed, regardless of order. In this case, each name phrase clearly refers to a single bird. Although our survey-based method prevents us from definitively establishing that a bird using those phrases understands the concepts of “goodnight” and “individual label”, the patterns are consistent with that interpretation. Further, such behavior matches the understanding that wild parrots also communicate about roosting behavior prior to sleeping [27] and use vocalizations to address individuals or flock-mates [16,57,42]. Most wild parrots live in complex fission-fusion societies and are expected to benefit from such personalized communication [48]. Thus, traits related to learning ability and social integration likely underlie the name-use capabilities we documented, and they provide clear evolutionary potential for the use of names in nature.

Researchers studying a variety of animal taxa have identified features of their vocalizations that reflect the identity of the signaler and receiver, but clear evidence for animal use of names (consistent vocal labels for non-self individuals) has been elusive [6,8,19]. In several species, researchers note that vocalization tone, frequency, amplitude, and other acoustic cues may be modulated to get the attention of certain receivers [8,10,15]. We observed a potential analog to that in our data set, which included examples of parrots that mimicked the voices of different individuals when speaking to them. Voice or other vocal modulation can be used to target individual signal receivers without the use of a name in the human sense [58,59]. Studies examining vocal identification via call modulation offer exciting results, but the name-like features of those calls are more difficult to interpret than stand-alone human names used by parrots. In English, human names do not depend on tone or voice modulation; they are consistent and identifiable sequences of phonemes most often used by non-self-individuals. Here we demonstrated those features clearly; parrots in our study learned human-given names frequently and used them to appropriately refer to other individuals.

Conclusion

Scientists and the public alike have often wondered whether animals can use proper names for themselves and each other [60]. Compelling evidence indicates that many animals can recognize and respond to human-given names [22,23], while others can invent and use individual vocal signatures [8,10,16,18]. No previous study, however, has provided evidence that a speciose group of animal subjects can produce and appropriately use names that are recognized as such according to human linguistic conventions [3]. We took advantage of the fact that parrots can mimic human speech to document evidence of name use by multiple avian species. Results indicated that parrots often learned names from their humans and used them in a variety of contexts, some of which are consistent with the ability to cognitively associate a name with an individual. All birds in our data set used human-derived names, leaving open questions about whether and how they might create names themselves. Results clearly demonstrate, however, that animals can learn and use proper names in appropriate social situations. Further work should be done in controlled settings to better understand the cognitive underpinnings of this behavior in parrots and beyond. We expect that the ability to label individuals is present in wild animals as well as captive ones. We hope that future work will find accurate ways to identify animal naming via methods that do not depend on human language.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Species name use.

Parrot species reported to use names, including lists for all species with words and phrases reported, species that mimicked names, species that showed appropriate name use, and species that showed individualized name use.

(XLSX)

pone.0346830.s001.xlsx (24.2KB, xlsx)
S2 Table. Dataset of name phrases with coding.

Dataset of parrot name phrases included in this study, with de-identified supporting information.

(XLSX)

pone.0346830.s002.xlsx (57.2KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

We thank Alexandra Charles, Tahais Guerrerro-Rocha, Amira Brockington, and Sandis Walter for organizing and scoring data. We received very helpful manuscript reviews from Dr. Nicolas Giret and three anonymous reviewers. Most importantly, we thank all the survey-takers who provided information about their parrots.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was funded in part by the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF) project ANIML (LS23-014) to MH. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Jeshion R. The significance of names. Mind Lang. 2009;24(4):370–403. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2009.01367.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bredart S, Brennen T, Valentine T. The cognitive psychology of proper names. London: Routledge. 2002. doi: 10.4324/9780203132364 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bright W. What is a name? Reflections on onomastics. Language and Linguistics. 2003;4(4):669–81. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Brédart S. The cognitive psychology and neuroscience of naming people. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2017;83:145–54. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.10.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Semenza C. The Neuropsychology of Proper Names. Mind & Language. 2009;24(4):347–69. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2009.01366.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Barton RA. Animal communication: do dolphins have names?. Current Biology. 2006;16(15):R598-9. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.07.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Pack A. Language research: Dolphins. 2018. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-55065-7_1628 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Pardo MA, Fristrup K, Lolchuragi DS, Poole JH, Granli P, Moss C. African elephants address one another with individually specific name-like calls. Nat Ecol Evol. 2024;:1–12. doi: 10.1038/s41559-024-02420-w [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Jaakkola K. Do marmosets really have names?. Learn Behav. 2025;53(4):317–8. doi: 10.3758/s13420-024-00662-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Oren G, Shapira A, Lifshitz R, Vinepinsky E, Cohen R, Fried T, et al. Vocal labeling of others by nonhuman primates. Science. 2024;385(6712):996–1003. doi: 10.1126/science.adp3757 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Elie JE, Theunissen FE. Zebra finches identify individuals using vocal signatures unique to each call type. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):4026. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-06394-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lehongre K, Aubin T, Robin S, Del Negro C. Individual Signature in Canary Songs: Contribution of Multiple Levels of Song Structure. Ethology. 2008;114(5):425–35. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2008.01486.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gidl H, Binder S, Osiecka AN, Klump BC. The ontogeny of vocal identity in carrion crows (Corvus corone). Anim Cogn. 2025;29(1):17. doi: 10.1007/s10071-025-02021-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Diniz P, Silva-Jr EF, Rech GS, Ribeiro PHL, Guaraldo AC, Macedo RH, et al. Duets convey information about pair and individual identities in a Neotropical bird. Curr Zool. 2024;71(4):456–68. doi: 10.1093/cz/zoae064 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Prat Y, Taub M, Yovel Y. Everyday bat vocalizations contain information about emitter, addressee, context, and behavior. Sci Rep. 2016;6(1):1. doi: 10.1038/srep39419 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Balsby TJS, Momberg JV, Dabelsteen T. Vocal imitation in parrots allows addressing of specific individuals in a dynamic communication network. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49747. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049747 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Dahlin CR, Young AM, Cordier B, Mundry R, Wright TF. A test of multiple hypotheses for the function of call sharing in female budgerigars, Melopsittacus undulatus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2014;68(1):145–61. doi: 10.1007/s00265-013-1631-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.King SL, Janik VM. Bottlenose dolphins can use learned vocal labels to address each other. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(32):13216–21. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1304459110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Jaakkola K. Do marmosets really have names?. Learn Behav. 2025;1–2. doi: 10.3758/s13420-024-00662-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.de Waal F. Are we smart enough to know how smart animals are?. W. W. Norton & Company. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bolton HC. The language used in talking to domestic animals. American Anthropologist. 1897;A10(3):65–90. doi: 10.1525/aa.1897.10.3.02a00000 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Dror S, Miklósi Á, Sommese A, Temesi A, Fugazza C. Acquisition and long-term memory of object names in a sample of Gifted Word Learner dogs. R Soc Open Sci. 2021;8(10):210976. doi: 10.1098/rsos.210976 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hirata S, Matsuda G, Ueno A, Fuwa K, Sugama K, Kusunoki K, et al. Event-related potentials in response to subjects’ own names: A comparison between humans and a chimpanzee. Commun Integr Biol. 2011;4(3):321–3. doi: 10.4161/cib.4.3.14841 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Dalziell AH, Welbergen JA, Igic B, Magrath RD. Avian vocal mimicry: a unified conceptual framework. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2015;90(2):643–68. doi: 10.1111/brv.12129 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Janik VM, Knörnschild M. Vocal production learning in mammals revisited. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2021;376(1836):20200244. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2020.0244 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Benedict L, Charles A, Brockington A, Dahlin CR. A survey of vocal mimicry in companion parrots. Scientific Reports. 2022;12(1):1. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-24335-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bradbury JW, Balsby TJS. The functions of vocal learning in parrots. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2016;70(3):293–312. doi: 10.1007/s00265-016-2068-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Colbert-White EN, Covington MA, Fragaszy DM. Social context influences the vocalizations of a home-raised African Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus erithacus). J Comp Psychol. 2011;125(2):175–84. doi: 10.1037/a0022097 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Pepperberg IM. Cognitive and communicative abilities of Grey parrots. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2006;100(1–2):77–86. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Giret N, Péron F, Lindová J, Tichotová L, Nagle L, Kreutzer M, et al. Referential learning of French and Czech labels in African grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus): different methods yield contrasting results. Behav Processes. 2010;85(2):90–8. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2010.06.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Roubalová T, Jarůšková L, Chládková K, Lindová J. Comparing the productive vocabularies of grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus) and young children. Anim Cogn. 2024;27(1):45. doi: 10.1007/s10071-024-01883-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Pepperberg IM. Grey parrots do not always ‘parrot’: the roles of imitation and phonological awareness in the creation of new labels from existing vocalizations. Language Sciences. 2007;29(1):1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2005.12.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Pepperberg IM. Nonhuman and Nonhuman-Human Communication: Some Issues and Questions. Front Psychol. 2021;12:647841. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.647841 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Sayigh LS, Wells RS, Janik VM. What’s in a voice? Dolphins do not use voice cues for individual recognition. Anim Cogn. 2017;20(6):1067–79. doi: 10.1007/s10071-017-1123-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Tibbetts EA, Dale J. Individual recognition: it is good to be different. Trends Ecol Evol. 2007;22(10):529–37. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.09.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Bruck JN, Walmsley SF, Janik VM. Cross-modal perception of identity by sound and taste in bottlenose dolphins. Sci Adv. 2022;8(20):eabm7684. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abm7684 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Bloom P. Possible names: The role of syntax-semantics mappings in the acquisition of nominals. Lingua. 1994;92:297–329. doi: 10.1016/0024-3841(94)90345-X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Gelman SA, Taylor M. How two-year-old children interpret proper and common names for unfamiliar objects. Child Dev. 1984;55(4):1535–40. doi: 10.2307/1130023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Sorrentino CM. Children and adults represent proper names as referring to unique individuals. Developmental Sci. 2001;4(4):399–407. doi: 10.1111/1467-7687.00181 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Pepperberg IM. Comments on “Comparing the productive vocabularies of Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus) and young children”. Anim Cogn. 2024;27(1):79. doi: 10.1007/s10071-024-01917-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Pepperberg IM. Vocal learning in Grey parrots: A brief review of perception, production, and cross-species comparisons. Brain Lang. 2010;115(1):81–91. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2009.11.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Wright TF, Dahlin CR. Vocal dialects in parrots: patterns and processes of cultural evolution. Emu - Austral Ornithology. 2018;118(1):50–66. doi: 10.1080/01584197.2017.1379356 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Cortopassi KA, Bradbury JW. Contact call diversity in wild orange-fronted parakeet pairs, Aratinga canicularis. Animal Behaviour. 2006;71(5):1141–54. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.09.011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Mann DC, Fitch WT, Tu H-W, Hoeschele M. Universal principles underlying segmental structures in parrot song and human speech. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):776. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-80340-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Mann DC, Hoeschele M. Segmental units in nonhuman animal vocalization as a window into meaning, structure, and the evolution of language. AB&C. 2020;7(2). doi: 10.26451/abc.07.02.09.2020 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Dahlin CR, Killinger B, Snipe M, Small O, Guenther B, Richwine L. Decoding parrot duets: complex communication in yellow‐naped amazons. Journal of Avian Biology. 2026;2026(1). doi: 10.1002/jav.03552 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Berg KS, Delgado S, Cortopassi KA, Beissinger SR, Bradbury JW. Vertical transmission of learned signatures in a wild parrot. Proc Biol Sci. 2012;279(1728):585–91. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2011.0932 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Bradbury JW. Vocal communication in wild parrots. Animal social complexity. Harvard University Press. 2013. p. 293–316. doi: 10.4159/harvard.9780674419131.c22 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Girouard PC, Ricard M, Décarie TG. The acquisition of personal pronouns in French-speaking and English-speaking children. J Child Lang. 1997;24(2):311–26. doi: 10.1017/s030500099700305x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Smiley PA, Chang LK, Allhoff AK. Can Toddy Give Me an Orange? Parent Input and Young Children’s Production ofIandYou. Language Learn Development. 2011;7(2):77–106. doi: 10.1080/15475441.2010.499495 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Saunders DA. Vocal repertoire and individual vocal recognition in the short-billed white-tailed black cockatoo, Calyptorhynchus funereus latirostris Carnaby. Wildlife Research. 1983;10(3):527–36. doi: 10.1071/wr9830527 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Smith-Vidaurre G, Araya-Salas M, Wright TF. Individual signatures outweigh social group identity in contact calls of a communally nesting parrot. Behavioral Ecology. 2019;31(2):448–58. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arz202 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Wanker R, Sugama Y, Prinage S. Vocal labelling of family members in spectacled parrotlets, Forpus conspicillatus. Animal Behaviour. 2005;70(1):111–8. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.09.022 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Birch J, Schnell AK, Clayton NS. Dimensions of Animal Consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2020;24(10):789–801. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2020.07.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Derégnaucourt S, Bovet D. The perception of self in birds. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016;69:1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.06.039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Smith-Ferguson J, Beekman M. Can’t see the colony for the bees: behavioural perspectives of biological individuality. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2019;94(6):1935–46. doi: 10.1111/brv.12542 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Hile A, Plummer T, Striedter G. Male vocal imitation produces call convergence during pair bonding in budgerigars, Melopsittacus undulatus. Anim Behav. 2000;59(6):1209–18. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1999.1438 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Ma W, Golinkoff RM, Houston DM, Hirsh-Pasek K. Word learning in infant- and adult-directed speech. Language Learn Development. 2011;7(3):185–201. doi: 10.1080/15475441.2011.579839 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Mariette MM, Pessato A, Buttemer WA, McKechnie AE, Udino E, Collins RN. Parent-embryo acoustic communication: a specialised heat vocalisation allowing embryonic eavesdropping. Scientific Reports. 2018;8(1):17721. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-35853-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Premack D. Words: what are they, and do animals have them?. Cognition. 1990;37(3):197–212. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(90)90045-L [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Jianhong Zhou

11 Jan 2026

Dear Dr. Benedict,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 23 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols....

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jianhong Zhou

Staff Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. Please note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This work was supported by the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF) project ANIML (LS23-014) to MH”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please note that we have only been able to secure a single reviewer to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of this single review if possible.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: In this study, the authors investigate the ability of companion parrots to use individual names. They rely on an online survey with the manyparrots.org platform. The dataset includes 1202 birds representing 64 parrot species. The authors proposed distinct categories of name types and contexts in which the names were uttered and tried to assess whether the names were used appropriately. They report that 413 parrots from 30 distinct species used names and that 88 different parrots used these names appropriately. The authors addressed several points in the discussion related to the learning ability, to the putative distinction between using name alone or in sentences, to whether parrots understood the meanings of using the name and on the particular acoustic features that may underline these names.

While I found the paper original and interesting, I have several concerns that should be addressed by the authors. First, in the introduction, I found that details are missing in the paragraph on individual signature, especially regarding all the literature in songbirds (some papers: Elie JE, Theunissen FE (2018) Zebra finches identify individuals using vocal signatures unique to each call type. Nat Commun 9:4026; Lehongre K, Aubin T, Robin S, Negro CD (2008) Individual Signature in Canary Songs: Contribution of Multiple Levels of Song Structure. Ethology 114:425–435; Gidl H, Binder S, Osiecka AN, Klump BC. The ontogeny of vocal identity in carrion crows (Corvus corone). Anim Cogn. 2025 Dec 16. doi: 10.1007/s10071-025-02021-5. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 41402471; Diniz P, Silva-Jr EF, Rech GS, Ribeiro PHL, Guaraldo AC, Macedo RH, Amorim PS. Duets convey information about pair and individual identities in a Neotropical bird. Curr Zool. 2024 Oct 21;71(4):456-468. doi: 10.1093/cz/zoae064. PMID: 40860766; PMCID: PMC12376049).

I am also a bit sceptical on the power of the results since it is mostly based on anecdotic examples. I value the work done by the authors to honestly quantify (and report) the use of names by the parrots, but whether this name use is very peculiar in the repertoire of these birds remains unclear to me compared to any other words the parrots are able to imitate. Relying on an online survey is clearly important for this kind of study, but I am at the same time wondering about the bias in the responses provided by the respondents. Especially, I would not be so surprised that the respondents were more willing to report examples when their own parrot(s) used names appropriately, than incorrectly. This putative bias should be discussed to temper the results. It is also a bit frustrating that no discussion is made at the species level: the authors go from examples at the level of single individuals to “parrots” in general, without mentioning whether name use was more frequent in any specific species (I do understand that there is a limitation due to the number of individuals per species, but this could be discussed a bit).

Below are more specific comments, not sorted by importance:

Materials and Methods

Please provide the number of species and the corresponding number of birds per species.

From table S2, I counted 63 different species reported to use words, not 64 as indicated in the main text and in table S1: after a check, Poicephalus gulielmi is reported twice in table S1.

In table S2, the species name was not provided for a few birds (bird IDs: 119, 553). And no genus, nor species were provided for a few other birds (birds IDs:485, 576, 3136) so I am wondering why these birds were included in the dataset.

Table 2: it is not very clear to me how the authors were able to properly separate the different contexts. For example, between “greeting” and “attention”.

L. 184: Please provide the corresponding 88 species in Table S1

L. 187: how many parrots used nine different phrases?

L189, 191 and 194: please provide the corresponding number of species of the 91 parrots using multiples phrases that include names, of the 145 parrots using more than one unique name and of the 21 parrots using 4 or more different names. This could be also provided in the Table 4.

L190: please provide a real number of parrots using multiple variants of names, and how many variants

L202/203: “Interestingly, no parrots were reported to use proper names for places (e.g. Austria), a type of proper name that humans use frequently (2)”. This should be either further discussed or removed. I do not see why it is interesting: my guess would be that animal caretaker do not mention places names very often when interacting with their bird (or do you have any assessment to argue for it?).

L. 221 : “Parrots were regularly reported to use names in incorrect human contexts. For example, many birds said their own names when seeking attention or in greetings.” Please provide numbers. Are these errors done more frequently by some specific species?

Figures 2 and 3: please add a label on the X axis (number of parrots). For clarity and allow direct comparison, these two figures could be combined in a single figure using a mirrored histogram.

§ starting at L. 235: it would be interesting, if possible, to get a score of how often individual parrots used a name appropriately vs non-appropriately: it is not the same if an individual uses ten times an appropriate name and ten times an inappropriate name (score of appropriateness= 50%) than a bird using four times an appropriate name and one times an inappropriate name (score of appropriateness= 80%).

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: Yes: Nicolas GiretNicolas GiretNicolas GiretNicolas Giret

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Apr 17;21(4):e0346830. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0346830.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


23 Feb 2026

Dear PLOS ONE Editorial Team and Dr. Giret,

Thank you for your very helpful comments on our manuscript. We catalog our responses to those comments below. All line numbers refer to the tracked-changes document,

As a general overview, we have revised the results reporting to provide more species-specific information in the text and tables. We have also updated some numbers and made an effort to recognize both the benefits and limitations of survey data like ours. Finally, we added several references (changes not tracked in the references section because the Zotero plug-in doesn’t track them), reviewed manuscript formatting and made edits to meet PLOS ONE style requirements.

Reviewer #1 Comments: In this study, the authors investigate the ability of companion parrots to use individual names. They rely on an online survey with the manyparrots.org platform. The dataset includes 1202 birds representing 64 parrot species. The authors proposed distinct categories of name types and contexts in which the names were uttered and tried to assess whether the names were used appropriately. They report that 413 parrots from 30 distinct species used names and that 88 different parrots used these names appropriately. The authors addressed several points in the discussion related to the learning ability, to the putative distinction between using name alone or in sentences, to whether parrots understood the meanings of using the name and on the particular acoustic features that may underline these names.

While I found the paper original and interesting, I have several concerns that should be addressed by the authors. First, in the introduction, I found that details are missing in the paragraph on individual signature, especially regarding all the literature in songbirds (some papers:

- Elie JE, Theunissen FE (2018) Zebra finches identify individuals using vocal signatures unique to each call type. Nat Commun 9:4026

- Lehongre K, Aubin T, Robin S, Negro CD (2008) Individual Signature in Canary Songs: Contribution of Multiple Levels of Song Structure. Ethology 114:425–435

- Gidl H, Binder S, Osiecka AN, Klump BC. The ontogeny of vocal identity in carrion crows (Corvus corone). Anim Cogn. 2025 Dec 16. doi: 10.1007/s10071-025-02021-5. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 41402471

- Diniz P, Silva-Jr EF, Rech GS, Ribeiro PHL, Guaraldo AC, Macedo RH, Amorim PS. Duets convey information about pair and individual identities in a Neotropical bird. Curr Zool. 2024 Oct 21;71(4):456-468. doi: 10.1093/cz/zoae064. PMID: 40860766; PMCID: PMC12376049).

Response: Thank you for this point. There is, indeed, a very large and compelling literature on individual recognition via acoustic cues among birds. The references you provided exemplify that, as does the long literature on neighbor-stranger discrimination by wild birds. Following your suggestion, we now make this clear in lines 58-61 where we have added the four citations that you suggested. We do not discuss this topic in depth, however, because individual acoustic signatures are not truly name-like; they allow a listener to identify a vocalizing individual, but they don’t allow a vocalizing individual to identify or target a listener, as names do. We now emphasize that distinction and our rationale for focusing our text around the literature on bats, elephants, dolphins, and parrots that shows how animals acoustically identify non-self individuals with their vocalizations.

I am also a bit sceptical on the power of the results since it is mostly based on anecdotic examples. I value the work done by the authors to honestly quantify (and report) the use of names by the parrots, but whether this name use is very peculiar in the repertoire of these birds remains unclear to me compared to any other words the parrots are able to imitate. Relying on an online survey is clearly important for this kind of study, but I am at the same time wondering about the bias in the responses provided by the respondents. Especially, I would not be so surprised that the respondents were more willing to report examples when their own parrot(s) used names appropriately, than incorrectly. This putative bias should be discussed to temper the results.

Response: We share these concerns and acknowledge that survey data is not entirely reliable. At the same time, it is the only way to assess behavior across so many individual birds, and we think that benefit makes it worth conducting this research, as long as the caveats you point out are reported. We do so in several places in the manuscript as follows:

Lines 183-186 (Methods) we “point out that the dataset is not perfectly representative of parrot name use, as survey respondents are more likely to report on vocalizations with meaning to them. Additionally, context information provided by the survey respondents may include biases in human interpretation of each parrot vocalization.”

Lines 339-340 (Discussion) we added a sentence indicating that results “might reflect biases in reporting by humans who tend to report examples of name use that are most salient in human interaction contexts.”

We also point out that we recorded many instances of parrots using names in incorrect human contexts (lines 356-358), confirming that survey-takers didn’t only report examples of correct name use. In our discussion of this topic and other results throughout the manuscript, we have chosen our words very carefully to indicate that our results are consistent with an understanding of the concept of names by parrots, but not ironclad evidence of that.

It is also a bit frustrating that no discussion is made at the species level: the authors go from examples at the level of single individuals to “parrots” in general, without mentioning whether name use was more frequent in any specific species (I do understand that there is a limitation due to the number of individuals per species, but this could be discussed a bit).

Response: You are correct that we avoided most discussion of this topic because our sampling was limited for most species. To better indicate that and to address questions about differences between species, we added species level sampling numbers to the following:

- Table 4 now indicates how many species used each name type (bird, person etc.)

- Table 5 now indicates how many birds and species used names in each context (greeting, separation, etc.)

- Table S2 now shows the number of individuals of each species that learned names (column c), used them appropriately (column f), and used them individually (column i)

We also looked at species for which we had reasonable sampling and could potentially calculate the tendency for individuals to use names appropriately. The following table (now table 6 in the manuscript) shows all species (only 5) for which we had at least 10 individuals that used names in known contexts. We had many species with more than 10 individuals that used names, but the context data set was limiting. Among those species, grey parrots were more often reported to use names correctly according to human conventions. We have added this to the manuscript in lines 285-293 and 379-382.

Context Appropriate Individualized

Amazona aestiva 10 30% 0%

Amazona oratrix 11 45% 18%

Myiopsitta monachus 12 42% 17%

Psittacus erithacus 45 67% 38%

Pyrrhura molinae 14 36% 7%

Below are more specific comments, not sorted by importance:

Materials and Methods

Please provide the number of species and the corresponding number of birds per species.

Response: We now list the number of birds and species included in the full sample on line 114. Lines 200-208 provide more details on sampling, and we have added the number of birds per species to table S1. We didn’t put that in the main text due to space constraints; it includes sample sizes for 63 different species.

From table S2, I counted 63 different species reported to use words, not 64 as indicated in the main text and in table S1: after a check, Poicephalus gulielmi is reported twice in table S1.

Response: Thank you for catching this. We have corrected the table and the text to say 63.

In table S2, the species name was not provided for a few birds (bird IDs: 119, 553). And no genus, nor species were provided for a few other birds (birds IDs:485, 576, 3136) so I am wondering why these birds were included in the dataset.

Response: These are birds for which the survey-takers did not provide species names. Each survey taker must have indicated in response to another question that they were reporting on a parrot that mimics human sounds. Therefore we included these parrots in the data set even if species wasn’t known.

Table 2: it is not very clear to me how the authors were able to properly separate the different contexts. For example, between “greeting” and “attention”.

Response: We have added text to clarify this in lines 139-142. Like with the other scoring, we had multiple reviewers look at these categories, and we emphasize that in lines 153-155. We acknowledge that these scores are subjective, but we attempted to minimize that as much as possible. At the same time, in many cases the scoring was unambiguous because survey-takers indicated that the bird used each phrase in contexts such as “when she wants my attention [attention]” or “when she sees me in the morning [greeting].”

L. 184: Please provide the corresponding 88 species in Table S1

Response: We have added this information to Table S1. We appreciate you asking us to list these because in doing so, we realized that we had a typo in the text and the total number of species with words or phrases reported in the survey was 78, not 88. This is now corrected in the text.

L. 187: how many parrots used nine different phrases?

Response: Just one. This is in a later sentence, line 214. We removed the mention of “nine phrases” in line 187 (now 203) to allow the later statement to stand on its own more clearly.

L189, 191 and 194: please provide the corresponding number of species of the 91 parrots using multiples phrases that include names, of the 145 parrots using more than one unique name and of the 21 parrots using 4 or more different names. This could be also provided in the Table 4.

Response: We have added this to the text in lines 205-207. In reviewing the numbers, we found an error: 96 (not 91) parrots used the same name in multiple phrases. We have corrected that and added species numbers for multiple name use. This is slightly different from what is in Table 4, as that indicates the number of total name phrases from each bird.

L190: please provide a real number of parrots using multiple variants of names, and how many variants

Response: We have added this information in lines 210-214. In calculating this we revised the text to indicate that we include cases where those 4 names included apparent nicknames. We now also report the species numbers for that in line 213.

L202/203: “Interestingly, no parrots were reported to use proper names for places (e.g. Austria), a type of proper name that humans use frequently (2)”. This should be either further discussed or removed. I do not see why it is interesting: my guess would be that animal caretaker do not mention places names very often when interacting with their bird (or do you have any assessment to argue for it?).

Response: We agree with you that the lack of place name learning likely reflects what owners say to their parrots. We think this is am important aspect of phrase learning and have added text to the discission point this out (lines 317-318).

L. 221 : “Parrots were regularly reported to use names in incorrect human contexts. For example, many birds said their own names when seeking attention or in greetings.” Please provide numbers. Are these errors done more frequently by some specific species?

Response: These numbers are in Figure 2, so we now refer to that at the end of this sentence (line 226). We did not have a way to accurately quantify “error rates” in name use, and instead are discussing general patterns here. Because of that and the fact that we have limited context information, we are unable to calculate meaningful “error rates” by species.

Figures 2 and 3: please add a label on the X axis (number of parrots). For clarity and allow direct comparison, these two figures could be combined in a single figure using a mirrored histogram.

Response: We have updated the figure as suggested, to create a new Figure 2.

§ starting at L. 235: it would be interesting, if possible, to get a score of how often individual parrots used a name appropriately vs non-appropriately: it is not the same if an individual uses ten times an appropriate name and ten times an inappropriate name (score of appropriateness= 50%) than a bird using four times an appropriate name and one times an inappropriate name (score of appropriateness= 80%).

Response: This would be very interesting to know! Unfortunately, we don’t have those data with our dataset. We could do follow-up research where we contact the survey participants to ask them this question. Thank you for that good suggestion.

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Response: We have reformatted following these guidelines. Our figures are 6x4 inches, in .tiff format which should rescale cleanly.

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

Response: We have added information to our ethics statement and moved it to the methods section, lines 108-113.

3. Please note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

Response: We have removed this statement from the manuscript.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This work was supported by the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF) project ANIML (LS23-014) to MH”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response: We have added the statement above to the cover letter.

5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written

Attachment

Submitted filename: Benedict et al - Response to Review.docx

pone.0346830.s004.docx (30.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Javed Iqbal

24 Mar 2026

Name use by companion parrots

PONE-D-25-58742R1

Dear Author,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support....

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Javed Iqbal, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: I would like to thank the authors for their revision. I just have minor comment:

I fell that the position of the sentence at line L. 58-59 ("Diverse species of birds can recognize individuals by the acoustic properties of their vocalizations (much as humans do when recognizing voices") is a little strange because it is mentionning ‘birds’ here while the subsequent phrases are about mammals (from L. 61). I would either move it or include some mammals references here and replace 'birds' by 'animals'.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: Yes: Nicolas GiretNicolas GiretNicolas GiretNicolas Giret

**********

Acceptance letter

Javed Iqbal

PONE-D-25-58742R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Benedict,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Javed Iqbal

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Species name use.

    Parrot species reported to use names, including lists for all species with words and phrases reported, species that mimicked names, species that showed appropriate name use, and species that showed individualized name use.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0346830.s001.xlsx (24.2KB, xlsx)
    S2 Table. Dataset of name phrases with coding.

    Dataset of parrot name phrases included in this study, with de-identified supporting information.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0346830.s002.xlsx (57.2KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Benedict et al - Response to Review.docx

    pone.0346830.s004.docx (30.3KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES