Evidence of learning and memory in the juvenile dwarf cuttlefish Sepia bandensis

Abstract

Measuring behavior in the form of numerical data is difficult, especially for studies involving complex actions. DanioVision is a closed-chamber system that utilizes subject tracking to comprehensively record behavior, while also mitigating the influence of environmental conditions. We used DanioVision to record activity of juvenile dwarf cuttlefish (Sepia bandensis) during the inaccessible prey (IP) procedure, a memory experiment in which cuttlefish learn to inhibit capture attempts towards inaccessible prey. By quantifying total movement and orientation of the body, we found that cuttlefish show memory by selectively inhibiting tentacle strikes without reducing total movement, or orientation towards the prey. We show that DanioVision can be used to assess multiple components of dynamic responses that are not measurable by direct observation alone and provide new evidence that strike inhibition is the product of learning, and not motor fatigue.

Husbandry and methodology for assessing learning and memory in the juvenile life stage of octopus

“…If no mortality was experienced, the individuals went through an eight-week training period, for a total of 16 training trials per individual, where they were rotated through all three levels of experimental habitats for a total of six trials a week with two trials for each of the three habitats (See Graphical abstract; [ 1 , 4 , 6 , 9 ]).…”

Oxygen loss compromises the survival and cognition of a coastal cephalopod

“…Thus, the suppression of predatory behavior could be attributed to habituation to the stimulus, wherein response evocation wanes over the number of trials in the absence of stimulus reinforcement (Messenger, 1973). This is unlikely to occur in the cuttlefish as dishabituation was not found after learning in the prawn-in-a-tube test (Agin et al, 2006;Bowers et al, 2020;Messenger, 1973;Purdy et al, 2006). Observer cuttlefish achieved greater learning success and faster learning rates (observational learning; Heyes, 1994) than demonstrators (instrumental learning).…”