Feeding ecology and laboratory predatory behavior toward live and artificial moving prey in seven rodent species

Timberlake, William; Washburne, Donna L.

doi:10.3758/bf03205206

Cited by 55 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, rolling a ball bearing predicting food past a variety of rodent species has failed to produce the high level of interaction readily shown by rats. However, requiring that the animal contact the ball bearing in order to obtain food has revealed a variety of species-typical patterns of contact that resemble how the species interacts with crickets (Timberlake & Washburne, 1989 Even the traditional instrumental responses of keypecking in pigeons and maze running in rats appear to require some form ofpreorganization to account for their rapid emergence under Pavlovian contingencies and/or simple exposure. Butsurely leverpressing is assembled through the arbitrary strengthening action of reinforcement?…”

Section: Feeding System Modules In Conditioningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavior systems, associationism, and Pavlovian conditioning

1994

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Associative and behavior systems accounts of Pavlovian conditioning have different emphases. The traditional associative account has focused on the role of the unconditional stimulus (US) in strengthening stimulus associations according to a set of general laws. The behavior systems account has focused on the relation of conditional responding to the preorganized perceptual, motor, and motivational organization engaged by the US. Knowledge of a behavior system enables successful prediction of the form and ease of conditioning as a function of the type of conditional stimulus (CS), US, and the CS-US relation. At the same time, Pavlovian manipulations act as a window on how a behavior system works. Both associative and behavior systems accounts can be criticized as incomplete and idiosyncratic. A comprehensive account of Pavlovian conditioning could profit from their integration. 405Laboratory-associationist and adaptive-evolutionary accounts of Pavlovian conditioning differ markedly in their focus. The former has emphasized the association between the conditional stimulus (CS) and the unconditional stimulus (US), and the role of the US in strengthening it (e.g., Hearst, 1988;Kimble, 1961;Mackintosh, 1974;Pavlov, 1927). Conditioning procedures have been refined and standardized to isolate the study of associations from the influence of instincts, nonassociative changes, and response-contingent reward (Hilgard & Marquis, 1940;Kimble, 1961). More recent models have expanded the types ofassociation and the role ofcontext, multiple CSs, the CS-US contingency, and stimulus representations in determining behavior (e.g., Miller & Matzel, 1988;Rescorla & Holland, 1982). However, the focus has remained on associations among stimuli and the simple causal role of the US. Within this approach, behavior has been treated primarily as an index of the strength of associations.In contrast, adaptive-evolutionary accounts of Pavlovian conditioning have emphasized behavior, especially the relation of the conditional response to the form and orientation of naturally occurring functional behavior and relevant underlying structure and processes (e.g., Davey, 1989;Fanselow & Lester, 1988;Gardner & Gardner, 1988;Holland, 1984;Hollis, 1982Hollis, , 1990Konorski, 1967;Rozin & Schull, 1988;Timberlake, 1983b;Timberlake & Lucas, 1989; Timberlake & Silva, in press). In this approach, establishing the perceptual-motor organiCompletion of this manuscript was facilitated by NIMH Grant 37892 and NSF Grant IBN 91 21647. The manuscript is based on a symposium presentation at the meetings of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, 1993. I am indebted to Cynthia Langley, Fran Silva, and Kathleen Silva for their comments. Please address correspondence to W. Timberlake, Department of Psychology, Indiana University, Bloomington, zation and motivational processes underlying behavior is a critical step in understanding conditioning. Presentation of the US is viewed as engaging and constraining preorganized mechanisms underlying behavior, rather tha...

show abstract

Section: Feeding System Modules In Conditioningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavior systems, associationism, and Pavlovian conditioning

1994

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet all satisfy their preferences by foraging, even the insectivores, which show a more opportunistic than stalking style. But grasshopper mice stalk, attack, kill and eat deer mice, pocket mice, and voles [Horner et al, 1964;Timberlake and Washburne, 1989], and even cotton rats three times their own weight [Ruffer, 1968]. Even so, mammals make up only 10% of their diet.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rodents are killed by a bite to the head or by throttling [Egascue, 1960]. Timberlake and Washburne [1989] found that caged Northern grasshopper mice, when offered a cricket, attacked, killed, and began eating within 8.8 B 1.7 (SE) s.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brain-Body Size Relations in Grasshopper Mice

Mann

Towe²

2003

Brain Behav Evol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cranial volumes were measured on museum specimens of two species of grasshopper mice, Onychomys leucogaster brevicaudus and Onychomys torridus pulcher. These were compared with body weights and body lengths, as recorded on the museum tags. On average, females were heavier and slightly longer than males, but they had smaller cranial volumes by about 3%. Statistically, the differences were marginally significant (with no difference in body length for one species), but the pattern of differences was the same in both species, and therefore probably real. This casts suspicion on the common notion that a larger body size requires a larger brain. It also questions the real meaning of encephalization quotients.

show abstract

“…The obtained results, therefore, encourage attention to feeding ecology. In particular, as omnivores, rats show distinct behavior patterns for predatory and non-predatory feeding (Timberlake & Washburne, 1989). If the observed difference in topography of behavior with intervention is related to a corresponding difference in feeding strategy, there may be promise in analysis of the interaction of the conditions under which a rat's feeding behavior produces effects, and the structural regularities in the causal relations involved in a typical predatory circumstance.…”

Section: An Integrative Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intervening to learn about effects of one’s actions

Bowers¹,

Timberlake²

2018

AB&C

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-Intervention provides a reliable cue to veridical causality. Just as an experimenter manipulates variables to distinguish cause and effect from mere correlation, so might a rat learn differently about the effects of its own actions. However, theory remains vague on specific predictions. The present study asks whether and how producing a conditional stimulus by lever contact alters what a rat learns about that stimulus. Despite the theoretical pressure among theories of causal reasoning for an effect of intervention to hold, the effect we found was not in standard goal-oriented response variables, but in a general activity measure, and so not readily interpretable by typical theories of causal reasoning. We propose a viable explanation for this pattern in terms of multiple foraging strategies. The primary contribution of the present results is that they pose three challenges to theories that concern how animals deal with cause and effect: 1) to resolve present ambiguities regarding predictions; 2) to situate causal cognition research in specific ecological contexts, such as predation; and 3) to look beyond goal acquisition, to the rest of the animal's behavior, including general activity. We present one potential solution in alignment with behavior systems approaches. Keywords -Intervention, Causal reasoning, Graphical models, Behavior systems, General activity, Rattus norvegicusExperimenters manipulate variables to discern cause and effect from mere correlation. They understand that producing a potential cause by one's own action to observe its effects (intervention) is crucial to their ability to attribute causation, and how observing covariation in this context provides much stronger evidence of causation than observing the same pattern occurring without control over relevant variables. However, it is not only experimenters who experiment. Cooks experiment with recipes; electricians experiment with circuits; and the rest of us experiment with recipes, circuits, plumbing, automotive repair, and whenever we attempt to decipher hidden causal factors. When we do, we are not always very principled scientists about it (even the principled scientists), but whatever experimental control we may overlook while adjusting the amount of sugar in a cake, reliably, when we test causal factors, here or in any domain, we intervene on variables.Likewise, rats are not merely passive observers, but engage in reliable patterns of appetitive behavior in which they interact with objects in their environments in system-specific ways. A feedingready rat will root, gnaw, and manipulate protrusions, thereby producing effects that may provide meaningful cues to causality. Such information is often available to be exploited by an active learner. Do they use this information appropriately? Are rats naïve experimenters? To be clear, the question is not whether rats are doing what a trained experimenter does. Rather, one can imagine a rat testing hypotheses with no more foresight than shown by human naïve experimenters. For instanc...

show abstract

Feeding ecology and laboratory predatory behavior toward live and artificial moving prey in seven rodent species

Cited by 55 publications

References 20 publications

Behavior systems, associationism, and Pavlovian conditioning

Behavior systems, associationism, and Pavlovian conditioning

Brain-Body Size Relations in Grasshopper Mice

Intervening to learn about effects of one’s actions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About