Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Two Comments by Hupé and by Langbein and Puppe address our choice of statistical analysis in assigning preference between sets of stimuli to individual ducklings in our paper. We believe that our analysis remains the most appropriate approach for our data and experimental design. Both Comments (1, 2) on our Report (3) question the assignment of individuals to a "preference" class.We defined the sign of each subject's preference according to which of two revolving stimuli elicited more approaches. To control for the effect of exposure to novel stimulus pairs on the effect we were measuring, ducklings were tested in a single, short session. We defined "an approach" operationally, taking into account the large interindividual qualitative variation in behavior. Because preference is not expressed in any natural, countable, unit of behavior, we used an arbitrary but unbiased construct. A duckling that showed maximum bias by faithfully following a single stimulus was assigned one "approach" each time the stimulus completed a quarter of a circle, thus scoring four approaches per revolution. Another that showed a series of brief approaches and halts within the quarter revolution also scored a single count per quarter. The significance of population bias was computed by a sign test on the number of ducklings that scored either way. The null hypothesis (i.e., lack of sensitivity to the relational properties of the stimulus pairs) was consistent with a nonsignificant difference in such a test. We used 4 pairs of shapes and 10 pairs of colors, and our results led to a convincing rejection of the null hypothesis. Pooling shape-same, shape-different, color-same, and color-different conditions, we tested 152 individuals, 39 of which did not move at all, leaving 113 who expressed a preference (we return to this issue below). Seventyseven of these preferred the training relation, a result for which the expected frequency under the null hypothesis is 8 in 10,000, a reliable outcome by most biological standards. We explored the sensitivity of our preference criterion by requiring a difference of at least 5 or 10 approaches to be counted. As the number of ties increased, significance fell to 0.05 for the five criterion and became nonsignificant for the ten criterion.There is no information on why some ducklings did not move, but this is not surprising. Following a suggestion from our critics to favor the null hypothesis, the immobile ducks could be assumed to have precisely no preference. (This is unjustified, because imprinting is likely to have occurred, even if we could not observe it; but we can explore it.) If we assign 19 ducks to the training preference and 20 to the other, the number of observations raises to 152, of which 96 preferred the training relation. The probability of this outcome under the null hypothesis is 15 out of 10,000, which, while lowering confidence, is well above currently accepted criteria. Consequently, we are confident that the result claimed was properly supported by the data.Both Comments suggest th...
Two Comments by Hupé and by Langbein and Puppe address our choice of statistical analysis in assigning preference between sets of stimuli to individual ducklings in our paper. We believe that our analysis remains the most appropriate approach for our data and experimental design. Both Comments (1, 2) on our Report (3) question the assignment of individuals to a "preference" class.We defined the sign of each subject's preference according to which of two revolving stimuli elicited more approaches. To control for the effect of exposure to novel stimulus pairs on the effect we were measuring, ducklings were tested in a single, short session. We defined "an approach" operationally, taking into account the large interindividual qualitative variation in behavior. Because preference is not expressed in any natural, countable, unit of behavior, we used an arbitrary but unbiased construct. A duckling that showed maximum bias by faithfully following a single stimulus was assigned one "approach" each time the stimulus completed a quarter of a circle, thus scoring four approaches per revolution. Another that showed a series of brief approaches and halts within the quarter revolution also scored a single count per quarter. The significance of population bias was computed by a sign test on the number of ducklings that scored either way. The null hypothesis (i.e., lack of sensitivity to the relational properties of the stimulus pairs) was consistent with a nonsignificant difference in such a test. We used 4 pairs of shapes and 10 pairs of colors, and our results led to a convincing rejection of the null hypothesis. Pooling shape-same, shape-different, color-same, and color-different conditions, we tested 152 individuals, 39 of which did not move at all, leaving 113 who expressed a preference (we return to this issue below). Seventyseven of these preferred the training relation, a result for which the expected frequency under the null hypothesis is 8 in 10,000, a reliable outcome by most biological standards. We explored the sensitivity of our preference criterion by requiring a difference of at least 5 or 10 approaches to be counted. As the number of ties increased, significance fell to 0.05 for the five criterion and became nonsignificant for the ten criterion.There is no information on why some ducklings did not move, but this is not surprising. Following a suggestion from our critics to favor the null hypothesis, the immobile ducks could be assumed to have precisely no preference. (This is unjustified, because imprinting is likely to have occurred, even if we could not observe it; but we can explore it.) If we assign 19 ducks to the training preference and 20 to the other, the number of observations raises to 152, of which 96 preferred the training relation. The probability of this outcome under the null hypothesis is 15 out of 10,000, which, while lowering confidence, is well above currently accepted criteria. Consequently, we are confident that the result claimed was properly supported by the data.Both Comments suggest th...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.