Old and New Approaches to Animal Cognition: There Is Not “One Cognition”

Abstract

<jats:p>Using the comparative approach, researchers draw inferences about the evolution of cognition. Psychologists have postulated several hypotheses to explain why certain species are cognitively more flexible than others, and these hypotheses assume that certain cognitive skills are linked together to create a generally “smart” species. However, empirical findings suggest that several animal species are highly specialized, showing exceptional skills in single cognitive domains while performing poorly in others. Although some cognitive skills may indeed overlap, we cannot a priori assume that they do across species. We argue that the term “cognition” has often been used by applying an anthropocentric viewpoint rather than a biocentric one. As a result, researchers tend to overrate cognitive skills that are human-like and assume that certain skills cluster together in other animals as they do in our own species. In this paper, we emphasize that specific physical and social environments create selection pressures that lead to the evolution of certain cognitive adaptations. Skills such as following the pointing gesture, tool-use, perspective-taking, or the ability to cooperate evolve independently from each other as a concrete result of specific selection pressures, and thus have appeared in distantly related species. Thus, there is not “one cognition”. Our argument is founded upon traditional Darwinian thinking, which—although always at the forefront of biology—has sometimes been neglected in animal cognition research. In accordance with the biocentric approach, we advocate a broader empirical perspective as we are convinced that to better understand animal minds, comparative researchers should focus much more on questions and experiments that are ecologically valid. We should investigate nonhuman cognition for its own sake, not only in comparison to the human model.</jats:p>

Linking ecology and cognition: does ecological specialisation predict cognitive test performance?

“…Although some other studies provided evidence for a g-factor in humans (Jensen 1985), non-human primates (Fernandes et al 2014;Damerius et al 2019), rodents, rabbits, cats, dogs (Galsworthy et al 2014) and birds (Sol et al 2005;Ducatez et al 2014a), we lack validation that this correlation factor represents general intelligence (Burkart et al 2017). In fact, it can simply reflect the selection of cognitive tasks that tap into similar cognitive domains, which would not necessarily validate the notion of general intelligence (Shaw and Schmelz 2017;Bräuer et al 2020).…”

Ravens parallel great apes in physical and social cognitive skills

“…Hence, the present study may pave the way to future collaborative studies and data sharing across research labs encouraging a ManyBirds project (see for related efforts 113 , 114 ). It may thus aid in 1) tackling one of the biggest obstacles in Animal Cognition research, to obtain sufficient sample sizes, and 2) improving and adapting distinct tasks of test-batteries to better implement and mimic the ecology of the respective model species (see also 115 , 116 ). Therefore, future studies should expand the range of investigated skills in a given test-battery beyond social interactions with humans and foraging contexts, and situate the findings within a comparative evolutionary framework (see also 95 , 96 , 116 ).…”

“…It may thus aid in 1) tackling one of the biggest obstacles in Animal Cognition research, to obtain sufficient sample sizes, and 2) improving and adapting distinct tasks of test-batteries to better implement and mimic the ecology of the respective model species (see also 115 , 116 ). Therefore, future studies should expand the range of investigated skills in a given test-battery beyond social interactions with humans and foraging contexts, and situate the findings within a comparative evolutionary framework (see also 95 , 96 , 116 ). Furthermore, we hope to inspire more research into the impact of ontogeny on cognitive performance, which, although constituting one of Tinbergen’s four why’s, is especially lagging behind in studies of Animal Cognition 117 , 118 .…”

Dogs display owner-specific expectations based on olfaction

“…In spite of these remarkable olfactory skills, an anthropocentric bias in experimental animal cognition resulted in that most current knowledge about dogs’ understanding of, and reacting to, their environment is limited to the visual or auditory modality 19 . Thus, the link between olfaction and cognition remains an important gap in our understanding of the mammalian species most closely associated with humans.…”