Limits...
Inference by Exclusion in Goffin Cockatoos (Cacatua goffini).

O'Hara M, Auersperg AM, Bugnyar T, Huber L - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: Inference by exclusion, the ability to base choices on the systematic exclusion of alternatives, has been studied in many nonhuman species over the past decade.However, the majority of methodologies employed so far are hard to integrate into a comparative framework as they rarely use controls for the effect of neophilia.Our results indicate that Goffin cockatoos are able to solve such abstract two-choice tasks employing inference by exclusion but also highlight the importance of other response strategies.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Cognitive Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Medical University Vienna, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

ABSTRACT
Inference by exclusion, the ability to base choices on the systematic exclusion of alternatives, has been studied in many nonhuman species over the past decade. However, the majority of methodologies employed so far are hard to integrate into a comparative framework as they rarely use controls for the effect of neophilia. Here, we present an improved approach that takes neophilia into account, using an abstract two-choice task on a touch screen, which is equally feasible for a large variety of species. To test this approach we chose Goffin cockatoos (Cacatua goffini), a highly explorative Indonesian parrot species, which have recently been reported to have sophisticated cognitive skills in the technical domain. Our results indicate that Goffin cockatoos are able to solve such abstract two-choice tasks employing inference by exclusion but also highlight the importance of other response strategies.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Performance in the training phase.a) Learning curves for all individuals over all training sessions, with the dotted line indicating the learning criterion of 80 per cent correct first choices (Criterion 1); b) Cumulative errors of novelty trials; a steep incline indicates novelty responses in both novelty trials, moderate incline indicates response to one novel stimulus per session and a straight horizontal line indicates no responses towards novel stimuli (Criterion 2); longer lines indicate individuals required more sessions to inhibit responses to novel stimuli.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4526371&req=5

pone.0134894.g003: Performance in the training phase.a) Learning curves for all individuals over all training sessions, with the dotted line indicating the learning criterion of 80 per cent correct first choices (Criterion 1); b) Cumulative errors of novelty trials; a steep incline indicates novelty responses in both novelty trials, moderate incline indicates response to one novel stimulus per session and a straight horizontal line indicates no responses towards novel stimuli (Criterion 2); longer lines indicate individuals required more sessions to inhibit responses to novel stimuli.

Mentions: Seven individuals learned the discrimination of the baseline stimuli (Criterion 1) before ceasing to respond to the novel stimuli (Criterion 2). Two individuals managed to inhibit their responses to novelty before reliably discriminating the baseline stimuli, and three subjects reached both criteria simultaneously. Overall, subjects required on average 7.92 sessions (+/- 1.22 SE) to complete the training phase. Individuals required on average 5.67 sessions (+/- 0.90 SE) to learn the discrimination of the baseline stimuli, whereas it took them on average 7.25 sessions (+/- 1.35 SE) to refrain from selecting the novel stimuli. All individuals chose a novel stimulus at least once (M = 6.25, +/- 1.33 SE; see Fig 3).


Inference by Exclusion in Goffin Cockatoos (Cacatua goffini).

O'Hara M, Auersperg AM, Bugnyar T, Huber L - PLoS ONE (2015)

Performance in the training phase.a) Learning curves for all individuals over all training sessions, with the dotted line indicating the learning criterion of 80 per cent correct first choices (Criterion 1); b) Cumulative errors of novelty trials; a steep incline indicates novelty responses in both novelty trials, moderate incline indicates response to one novel stimulus per session and a straight horizontal line indicates no responses towards novel stimuli (Criterion 2); longer lines indicate individuals required more sessions to inhibit responses to novel stimuli.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4526371&req=5

pone.0134894.g003: Performance in the training phase.a) Learning curves for all individuals over all training sessions, with the dotted line indicating the learning criterion of 80 per cent correct first choices (Criterion 1); b) Cumulative errors of novelty trials; a steep incline indicates novelty responses in both novelty trials, moderate incline indicates response to one novel stimulus per session and a straight horizontal line indicates no responses towards novel stimuli (Criterion 2); longer lines indicate individuals required more sessions to inhibit responses to novel stimuli.
Mentions: Seven individuals learned the discrimination of the baseline stimuli (Criterion 1) before ceasing to respond to the novel stimuli (Criterion 2). Two individuals managed to inhibit their responses to novelty before reliably discriminating the baseline stimuli, and three subjects reached both criteria simultaneously. Overall, subjects required on average 7.92 sessions (+/- 1.22 SE) to complete the training phase. Individuals required on average 5.67 sessions (+/- 0.90 SE) to learn the discrimination of the baseline stimuli, whereas it took them on average 7.25 sessions (+/- 1.35 SE) to refrain from selecting the novel stimuli. All individuals chose a novel stimulus at least once (M = 6.25, +/- 1.33 SE; see Fig 3).

Bottom Line: Inference by exclusion, the ability to base choices on the systematic exclusion of alternatives, has been studied in many nonhuman species over the past decade.However, the majority of methodologies employed so far are hard to integrate into a comparative framework as they rarely use controls for the effect of neophilia.Our results indicate that Goffin cockatoos are able to solve such abstract two-choice tasks employing inference by exclusion but also highlight the importance of other response strategies.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Cognitive Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Medical University Vienna, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

ABSTRACT
Inference by exclusion, the ability to base choices on the systematic exclusion of alternatives, has been studied in many nonhuman species over the past decade. However, the majority of methodologies employed so far are hard to integrate into a comparative framework as they rarely use controls for the effect of neophilia. Here, we present an improved approach that takes neophilia into account, using an abstract two-choice task on a touch screen, which is equally feasible for a large variety of species. To test this approach we chose Goffin cockatoos (Cacatua goffini), a highly explorative Indonesian parrot species, which have recently been reported to have sophisticated cognitive skills in the technical domain. Our results indicate that Goffin cockatoos are able to solve such abstract two-choice tasks employing inference by exclusion but also highlight the importance of other response strategies.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus