Fast- and slow-exploring pigeons differ in how they use previously learned rules

Abstract

Please cite this article as: Guillette, L.M., Baron, D.M., Sturdy, C.B., Spetch, M.L., Fastand slow-exploring pigeons differ in how they use previously learned rules.Behavioural Processes http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.beproc.2016.07.006 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. AbstractSeveral studies report a correlation between exploratory behaviour and performance on tests of cognitive ability. Exploration may influence learning because less exploratory animals are less likely to come in contact with to-be-learned stimuli. Alternatively, the way information available in the environment is processed could influence the rate of exploration. Pigeons are one of the most-studied species used to examine the mechanisms underlying cognitive abilities, but have not been used to examine the relationship between these abilities and animal personality. Here, twelve pigeons were first tested in a novel environment to assess repeatability in exploratory behaviour. Pigeons were then trained to discriminate between two visual stimuli: lines oriented at 90° (vertical, the S+) and 135° (the S-). After training pigeons underwent generalization testing with ten additional visual line orientation stimuli. We found exploratory behaviour was related to generalization performance: fast-explorers had steeper generalization gradients compared to slow-explorers. This effect was only seen in the direction towards the S-. These results suggest that birds with different exploratory styles differ in how they use previously learned information. Further testing is needed to confirm which cue(s) (S+ or S-) control the behaviour of fast-explorers.

Bolder and Brighter? Exploring Correlations Between Personality and Cognitive Abilities Among Individuals Within a Population of Wild Zebrafish, Danio rerio

“…Personality ( Moretz et al, 2007 ; Martins and Bhat, 2014 ; Roy et al, 2017 ; Roy and Bhat, 2018b ) and spatial cognition ( Arthur and Levin, 2001 ; Spence et al, 2011 ) in zebrafish have been characterized and studied, but there have been no forays into deciphering the relationship between the two aspects of behavior. However, recent studies have been performed in multiple taxa, aimed at distinguishing the underlying correlation between personality and cognition ( Carter et al, 2014 ; Bousquet et al, 2015 ; Guillette et al, 2017 ). Our study examined correlations between personality and spatial learning in wild zebrafish and whether personality traits remain consistent over time and context.…”

Individual variation in cognitive style reflects foraging and anti-predator strategies in a small mammal

“…Also, recent studies suggest that different personality/cognitive styles might have comparable learning rates but use the learned information quite differently (e.g. 36,37 ). Individual differences were also reported in the degree of attention and accuracy devoted to assess a potential threat 38 .…”

Is exploration a metric for information gathering? Attraction to novelty and plasticity in black‐capped chickadees

“…These findings have served as the basis for many studies where fast explorers are predicted to be routine-like and slow explorers are predicted to be more plastic in their behaviors. Still, studies have found mixed results on the relationship between exploration and behavioral plasticity measured in the context of a change in the value of resources (e.g., reversal learning; Bebus, Small, Jones, Elderbrock, & Schoech, 2016;Guillette, Baron, Sturdy, & Spetch, 2017), abiotic conditions (e.g., temperature; Herborn, Heidinger, Alexander, & Arnold, 2014), or biotic conditions (e.g., predation risk; Quinn, Patrick, Bouwhuis, Wilkin, & Sheldon, 2009). For instance, in Herborn et al (2014) fast explorers were reported to change feeders more frequently in response to temperature changes, while slow explorers in Adriaenssens and Johnsson (2010) were suggested to have increased plasticity as they were observed to have higher activity rate with increased experience.…”

“…Under the BF hypothesis, we predict slower explorers to be more plastic and change their behavior, that is, stop using the familiar option and switch to the novel option, more quickly than faster explorers. Here, we define behavioral plasticity as defined in Greenberg (2003), where plasticity is a modification in foraging behavior (Rockwell, Gabriel, & Black, 2012). Similar to Verbeek et al (1994), we use the "strength of a foraging habit" as the number of visits to a previously rewarding familiar option to measure behavioral plasticity.…”