Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Inferential reasoning by exclusion allows responding adaptively to various environmental stimuli when confronted with inconsistent or partial information. In the experimental context, this mechanism allows selecting correctly between an empty option and a potentially rewarded one. Recently, the increasing reports of this capacity in phylogenetically distant species have led to the assumption that reasoning by exclusion is the result of convergent evolution. Within one largely unstudied avian order, i.e. the Charadriiformes, brown skuas (Catharacta antarctica ssp lonnbergi) are highly flexible and opportunistic predators.Behavioural flexibility, along with specific aspects of skuas' feeding ecology, may act as influencing factors in their ability to show exclusion performance. Our study aims to test whether skuas are able to make choice by exclusion in a visual two-way object-choice task.Twenty-six wild birds were presented with two opaque cups, one covering a food reward.Three conditions were used: 'full information' (showing the content of both cups), 'exclusion' (showing the content of the empty cup), and 'control' (not showing any content).Skuas preferentially selected the rewarded cup in the full information and exclusion condition. The use of olfactory cues was excluded by results in the control condition. Our study highlights the cognitive potential of this predatory seabird and opens new investigations for testing further its cognition in the wild.
Inferential reasoning by exclusion allows responding adaptively to various environmental stimuli when confronted with inconsistent or partial information. In the experimental context, this mechanism allows selecting correctly between an empty option and a potentially rewarded one. Recently, the increasing reports of this capacity in phylogenetically distant species have led to the assumption that reasoning by exclusion is the result of convergent evolution. Within one largely unstudied avian order, i.e. the Charadriiformes, brown skuas (Catharacta antarctica ssp lonnbergi) are highly flexible and opportunistic predators.Behavioural flexibility, along with specific aspects of skuas' feeding ecology, may act as influencing factors in their ability to show exclusion performance. Our study aims to test whether skuas are able to make choice by exclusion in a visual two-way object-choice task.Twenty-six wild birds were presented with two opaque cups, one covering a food reward.Three conditions were used: 'full information' (showing the content of both cups), 'exclusion' (showing the content of the empty cup), and 'control' (not showing any content).Skuas preferentially selected the rewarded cup in the full information and exclusion condition. The use of olfactory cues was excluded by results in the control condition. Our study highlights the cognitive potential of this predatory seabird and opens new investigations for testing further its cognition in the wild.
Animal cognition research aims to understand animal minds by using a diverse range of methods across an equally diverse range of species. Throughout its history, the field has sought to mitigate various biases that occur when studying animal minds, from experimenter effects to anthropomorphism. Recently, there has also been a focus on how common scientific practices might affect the reliability and validity of published research. Usually, these issues are discussed in the literature by a small group of scholars with a specific interest in the topics. This study aimed to survey a wider range of animal cognition researchers to ask about their attitudes towards classic and contemporary issues facing the field. Two-hundred and ten active animal cognition researchers completed our survey, and provided answers on questions relating to bias, replicability, statistics, publication, and belief in animal cognition. Collectively, researchers were wary of bias in the research field, but less so in their own work. Over 70% of researchers endorsed Morgan’s canon as a useful principle but many caveated this in their free-text responses. Researchers self-reported that most of their studies had been published, however they often reported that studies went unpublished because they had negative or inconclusive results, or results that questioned “preferred” theories. Researchers rarely reported having performed questionable research practices themselves—however they thought that other researchers sometimes (52.7% of responses) or often (27.9% of responses) perform them. Researchers near unanimously agreed that replication studies are important but too infrequently performed in animal cognition research, 73.0% of respondents suggested areas of animal cognition research could experience a ‘replication crisis’ if replication studies were performed. Consistently, participants’ free-text responses provided a nuanced picture of the challenges animal cognition research faces, which are available as part of an open dataset. However, many researchers appeared concerned with how to interpret negative results, publication bias, theoretical bias and reliability in areas of animal cognition research. Collectively, these data provide a candid overview of barriers to progress in animal cognition and can inform debates on how individual researchers, as well as organizations and journals, can facilitate robust scientific research in animal cognition.
Cognitive enrichment for professionally managed species has become more prevalent in recent years in both zoological and research settings and has been encouraged as a means of welfare enhancement. However, the task’s difficulty must be specifically tailored as it can impact the successful nature of the sessions, as tasks that are too simple or difficult may not be perceived as enriching by the animals. While pinnipeds are common in zoos, aquariums, and research facilities, few studies have explored the use of cognitively challenging enrichment in this species, and the level of difficulty and presence of failure on animal success and engagement in this type of session has not been assessed. In this study, gameplay strategies during computerized enrichment sessions were evaluated before and after a game that introduced failure, or the loss of opportunity to complete a level for a reward after an incorrect movement. Interest in participation during the session, measured as the latency without contact, was also tested as a proxy for this enrichment’s effect on welfare. When incorrect movements resulted in a short pause and removed the opportunity to finish individual levels for a reward, all three sea lions tested significantly reduced the amount of time spent on each of several strategies they employed, but significantly increased the number of button presses per strategy, suggesting the animals focused on more precise movements as their proficiency improved. Two sea lions also showed a significant decline in latency without contact following the introduction of failure in the form of a single opportunity to complete a task for a reward after previously having unlimited opportunities, while one maintained a low latency without contact across both test conditions. The results suggest that more cognitively challenging tasks incorporating failure did not cause a reduction in gameplay performance and session interest in sea lions. Individual variation was also noted in strategy use, emphasizing the importance of evaluating the individual in terms of enrichment provision.
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.