{"title":"Rats’ performance in a suboptimal choice procedure implemented in a natural-foraging analogue","authors":"Fernanda González-Barriga, Vladimir Orduña","doi":"10.1007/s10071-024-01913-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Rats and pigeons have shown striking differences in their behavior in the suboptimal choice procedure: while pigeons show a strong and consistent preference for the discriminative alternative, most studies performed with rats have found optimal preferences, and in the cases in which suboptimal preferences have been reported, those results have not been replicated. Currently, there is no consensus about the reasons for these discrepant results between species, but different explanations have been proposed either with an empirical base or exclusively in theoretical terms. In the latter category it has been proposed that the discrepancy might have arisen because of differences in the relationship between the natural foraging response of each species, and the response required in the laboratory. For analyzing this possibility, we conducted two experiments carried out within a maze that was specifically designed to allow rats to display behaviors related to their natural foraging. In experiment 1, we explored rats’ preferences when facing a discriminative alternative with probability of reinforcement (p) = 0.5, and a non-discriminative alternative with <i>p</i> = .75. In experiment 2, we evaluated preferences when the discriminative alternative had <i>p</i> = .20 and the non-discriminative had <i>p</i> = .50, rats were evaluated in a closed economy, with longer terminal links, and were allowed to escape from the outcome found. In both studies, rats showed a strong preference for the non-discriminative alternative and showed very high levels of discrimination between the positive and the negative outcomes of the discriminative alternative.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7879,"journal":{"name":"Animal Cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10071-024-01913-2.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-024-01913-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Rats and pigeons have shown striking differences in their behavior in the suboptimal choice procedure: while pigeons show a strong and consistent preference for the discriminative alternative, most studies performed with rats have found optimal preferences, and in the cases in which suboptimal preferences have been reported, those results have not been replicated. Currently, there is no consensus about the reasons for these discrepant results between species, but different explanations have been proposed either with an empirical base or exclusively in theoretical terms. In the latter category it has been proposed that the discrepancy might have arisen because of differences in the relationship between the natural foraging response of each species, and the response required in the laboratory. For analyzing this possibility, we conducted two experiments carried out within a maze that was specifically designed to allow rats to display behaviors related to their natural foraging. In experiment 1, we explored rats’ preferences when facing a discriminative alternative with probability of reinforcement (p) = 0.5, and a non-discriminative alternative with p = .75. In experiment 2, we evaluated preferences when the discriminative alternative had p = .20 and the non-discriminative had p = .50, rats were evaluated in a closed economy, with longer terminal links, and were allowed to escape from the outcome found. In both studies, rats showed a strong preference for the non-discriminative alternative and showed very high levels of discrimination between the positive and the negative outcomes of the discriminative alternative.
期刊介绍:
Animal Cognition is an interdisciplinary journal offering current research from many disciplines (ethology, behavioral ecology, animal behavior and learning, cognitive sciences, comparative psychology and evolutionary psychology) on all aspects of animal (and human) cognition in an evolutionary framework.
Animal Cognition publishes original empirical and theoretical work, reviews, methods papers, short communications and correspondence on the mechanisms and evolution of biologically rooted cognitive-intellectual structures.
The journal explores animal time perception and use; causality detection; innate reaction patterns and innate bases of learning; numerical competence and frequency expectancies; symbol use; communication; problem solving, animal thinking and use of tools, and the modularity of the mind.