Differences in paradoxical choice between pigeons (Columba livia) and rats (Rattus norvegicus): The problem of cue trackability.

IF 1.1 4区 心理学 Q4 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES Journal of Comparative Psychology Pub Date : 2024-05-16 DOI:10.1037/com0000386
Patrick Anselme, Aaron P Blaisdell
{"title":"Differences in paradoxical choice between pigeons (Columba livia) and rats (Rattus norvegicus): The problem of cue trackability.","authors":"Patrick Anselme, Aaron P Blaisdell","doi":"10.1037/com0000386","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Organisms are believed to attempt to maximize their net energy intake while foraging. The paradoxical choice task shows that they may instead prefer to obtain information rather than primary reward when the outcome is uncertain. That is, they prefer stimuli that consistently predict food or no food (informative option), to stimuli that inconsistently predict both food and no food in larger amounts (noninformative option). This task also seems to indicate that some species (like pigeons, <i>Columba livia,</i> and starlings, <i>Sturnus vulgaris</i>) are more prone to choose the informative option, while other species (like rats, <i>Rattus norvegicus</i>, and humans, <i>Homo sapiens</i>) tend to favor reward procurement through the noninformative option. There is empirical evidence for and against this view. However, an analysis of the literature suggests that species differences in paradoxical choice might be less pronounced than often believed. We argue that pigeons and rats are usually not tested under conditions that are motivationally equivalent for both species-in particular, the opportunities to track consistent stimulus-food pairings are less often met in the rat studies than in the pigeon studies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":54861,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Comparative Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Comparative Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000386","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Organisms are believed to attempt to maximize their net energy intake while foraging. The paradoxical choice task shows that they may instead prefer to obtain information rather than primary reward when the outcome is uncertain. That is, they prefer stimuli that consistently predict food or no food (informative option), to stimuli that inconsistently predict both food and no food in larger amounts (noninformative option). This task also seems to indicate that some species (like pigeons, Columba livia, and starlings, Sturnus vulgaris) are more prone to choose the informative option, while other species (like rats, Rattus norvegicus, and humans, Homo sapiens) tend to favor reward procurement through the noninformative option. There is empirical evidence for and against this view. However, an analysis of the literature suggests that species differences in paradoxical choice might be less pronounced than often believed. We argue that pigeons and rats are usually not tested under conditions that are motivationally equivalent for both species-in particular, the opportunities to track consistent stimulus-food pairings are less often met in the rat studies than in the pigeon studies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
鸽子(Columba livia)和大鼠(Rattus norvegicus)之间矛盾选择的差异:线索的可追踪性问题。
人们认为,生物在觅食时会试图最大限度地摄入净能量。悖论选择任务表明,当结果不确定时,它们可能更愿意获得信息而不是主要奖励。也就是说,相对于不一致地同时预测有食物和无食物且数量较大的刺激(非信息选项),它们更喜欢持续预测有食物或无食物的刺激(信息选项)。这项任务似乎还表明,某些物种(如鸽子和椋鸟)更倾向于选择信息选项,而其他物种(如大鼠和人类)则倾向于通过非信息选项获取奖励。有经验证据支持和反对这种观点。然而,对文献的分析表明,矛盾选择的物种差异可能没有人们通常认为的那么明显。我们认为,对鸽子和大鼠进行测试时,通常没有在两种动物动机相同的条件下进行--特别是,在大鼠的研究中,追踪刺激与食物配对的一致性的机会比在鸽子的研究中更少。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Comparative Psychology publishes original research from a comparative perspective on the behavior, cognition, perception, and social relationships of diverse species.
期刊最新文献
Hearing "number"?: Relative quantity judgments through the echolocation by bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). The impact of training method on odor learning and generalization in dogs (Canis lupus familiaris). Cross-modal perception of puppies and adult conspecifics in dogs (Canis familiaris). Putting the best foot forward: Limb lateralization in the Goffin's cockatoo (Cacatua goffiniana). Guatemalan beaded lizards (Helodermatidae: Heloderma charlesbogerti) navigate and follow a scent trail in maze tasks.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1