Inhibitory control is an executive function that positively predicts performance in several cognitive tasks and has been considered typical of vertebrates with large and complex nervous systems such as primates. However, evidence is growing that some fish species have evolved complex cognitive abilities in spite of their relatively small brain size. We tested whether fish might also show enhanced inhibitory control by subjecting guppies, Poecilia reticulata, to the motor task used to test warm-blooded vertebrates. Guppies were trained to enter a horizontal opaque cylinder to reach a food reward; then, the cylinder was replaced by a transparent one, and subjects needed to inhibit the response to pass thought the transparency to reach the food. Guppies performed correctly in 58% trials, a performance fully comparable to that observed in most birds and mammals. In experiment 2, we tested guppies in a task with a different type of reward, a group of conspecifics. Guppies rapidly learned to detour a transparent barrier to reach the social reward with a performance close to that of experiment 1. Our study suggests that efficient inhibitory control is shown also by fish, and that its variation between-species is only partially explained by variation in brain size.

Most of the studies on learning in bees have focused on the foraging context; we know little about the preferences and cognitive processes in nest-site selection, especially in solitary bees. The majority of the bee species are solitary and in contrast to eusocial bees, solitary bees’ cognition and social information use have remained largely unstudied. Solitary cavity-nesting mason bees (Osmia spp.) are an ideal system to study interspecific information use in nest choice in the wild as many species share similar nesting requirements. Here, we show that the blue mason bee (O. caerulescens) and the orange-vented mason bee (O. leaiana) examine hallmarks of parasitization of the nests of red mason bees (O. bicornis) before deciding where to establish their own nests. They were also presented with contextual cues (geometric symbols) that could be linked to parasitization by observational learning. Subjects subsequently had the choice of nesting in a nest site marked by the symbol that matched, or did not match, the one seen at the parasitized or healthy nest. We show that the bees copied and rejected the symbol of the examined nest manipulated to exhibit successful and unsuccessful nesting, respectively. We conclude that solitary bees use interspecific information in their nest-site selection. In contrast with current theories of species coexistence, niche overlap between species may dynamically change depending on the observed success of surrounding individuals.

No abstract

A recent study found that guppies (Poecilia reticulata) can be trained to discriminate 4 versus 5 objects, a numerical discrimination typically achieved only by some mammals and birds. In that study, guppies were required to discriminate between two patches of small objects on the bottom of the tank that they could remove to find a food reward. It is not clear whether this species possesses exceptional numerical accuracy compared with the other ectothermic vertebrates or whether its remarkable performance was due to a specific predisposition to discriminate between differences in the quality of patches while foraging. To disentangle these possibilities, we trained guppies to the same numerical discriminations with a more conventional two-choice discrimination task. Stimuli were sets of dots presented on a computer screen, and the subjects received a food reward upon approaching the set with the larger numerosity. Though the cognitive problem was identical in the two experiments, the change in the experimental setting led to a much poorer performance as most fish failed even the 2 versus 3 discrimination. In four additional experiments, we varied the duration of the decision time, the type of stimuli, the length of training, and whether correction was allowed in order to identify the factors responsible for the difference. None of these parameters succeeded in increasing the performance to the level of the previous study, although the group trained with three-dimensional stimuli learned the easiest numerical task. We suggest that the different results with the two experimental settings might be due to constraints on learning and that guppies might be prepared to accurately estimate patch quality during foraging but not to learn an abstract stimulus-reward association.

Synopsis Most research in comparative cognition focuses on measuring if animals manage certain tasks; fewer studies explore how animals might solve them. We investigated bumblebees’ scanning strategies in a numerosity task, distinguishing patterns with 2 items from 4 and 1 from 3, and subsequently transferring numerical information to novel numbers, shapes and colours. Video analyses of flight paths indicate that bees do not determine the number of items by using a rapid assessment of number (as mammals do in “subitizing”); instead, they rely on sequential enumeration even when items are presented simultaneously and in small quantities. This process, equivalent to the motor tagging (“pointing”) found for large number tasks in some primates, results in longer scanning times for patterns containing larger numbers of items. Bees used a highly accurate working memory, remembering which items have already been scanned, resulting in fewer than 1% of re-inspections of items before making a decision. Our results indicate that the small brain of bees, with less parallel processing capacity than mammals, might constrain them to use sequential pattern evaluation even for low quantities.

The growing use of teleosts in comparative cognition and in neurobiological research has prompted many researchers to develop automated conditioning devices for fish. These techniques can make research less expensive and fully comparable with research on warm-blooded species, in which automated devices have been used for more than a century. Tested with a recently developed automated device, guppies (Poecilia reticulata) easily performed 80 reinforced trials per session, exceeding 80% accuracy in color or shape discrimination tasks after only 3–4 training session, though they exhibit unexpectedly poor performance in numerical discrimination tasks. As several pieces of evidence indicate, guppies possess excellent numerical abilities. In the first part of this study, we benchmarked the automated training device with a standard manual training procedure by administering the same set of tasks, which consisted of numerical discriminations of increasing difficulty. All manually-trained guppies quickly learned the easiest discriminations and a substantial percentage learned the more difficult ones, such as 4 vs. 5 items. No fish trained with the automated conditioning device reached the learning criterion for even the easiest discriminations. In the second part of the study, we introduced a series of modifications to the conditioning chamber and to the procedure in an attempt to improve its efficiency. Increasing the decision time, inter-trial interval, or visibility of the stimuli did not produce an appreciable improvement. Reducing the cognitive load of the task by training subjects first to use the device with shape and color discriminations, significantly improved their numerical performance. Allowing the subjects to reside in the test chamber, which likely reduced the amount of attentional resources subtracted to task execution, also led to an improvement, although in no case did subjects match the performance of fish trained with the standard procedure. Our results highlight limitations in the capacity of small laboratory teleosts to cope with operant conditioning automation that was not observed in laboratory mammals and birds and that currently prevent an easy and straightforward comparison with other vertebrates.

The shoal-choice test is a popular method to investigate quantity discrimination in social fish based on their spontaneous preference for the larger of two shoals. The shoal-choice test usually requires a long observation time (20-30 min), mainly because fish switch between the two shoals with low frequency, thus reducing the possibilities of comparison. This duration limits the use of the shoal-choice test for large-scale screenings. Here, we developed a new version of the shoal-choice test in which the subject was confined in a large transparent cylinder in the middle of the tank throughout the experiment to bound the minimum distance from the stimulus shoals and favour switching. We tested the new method by observing guppies (Poecilia reticulata) in a 4 versus 6 fish discrimination (experiment 1). The new method allowed for a faster assessment of the preference for the larger shoal (<5 min), resulting in potential application for large population screenings. Guppies switched five times more frequently between the two shoals and remained close to the first chosen shoal ten times less compared to experiments with the old method. In experiment 2, we found that with the new method guppies were able to discriminate up to 5 versus 6 fish, a discrimination that was not achieved with the classical method. This last result indicates that minor methodological modifications can lead to very different findings in the same species and suggests that caution should be exercised when interpreting inter-specific differences in quantitative abilities.

No abstract