A reinvestigation of cognitive styles in sticklebacks: decision success varies with behavioral type.

IF 2.5 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES Behavioral Ecology Pub Date : 2024-11-25 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1093/beheco/arae097
Nick A R Jones, Kirstin Gaffney, Giacomo Gardella, Annie Rowe, Helen C Spence-Jones, Amelia Munson, Tom M Houslay, Mike M Webster
{"title":"A reinvestigation of cognitive styles in sticklebacks: decision success varies with behavioral type.","authors":"Nick A R Jones, Kirstin Gaffney, Giacomo Gardella, Annie Rowe, Helen C Spence-Jones, Amelia Munson, Tom M Houslay, Mike M Webster","doi":"10.1093/beheco/arae097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The \"cognitive styles\" hypothesis suggests that individual differences in behavior are associated with variation in cognitive performance via underlying speed-accuracy trade-offs. While this is supported, in part, by a growing body of evidence, some studies did not find the expected relationships between behavioral type and cognitive performance. In some cases, this may reflect methodological limitations rather than the absence of a true relationship. The physical design of the testing arena and the number of choices offered in an assay can hinder our ability to detect inter-individual differences in cognitive performance. Here, we re-investigated the cognitive styles hypothesis in threespine stickleback (<i>Gasterosteus aculeatus</i>), adapting the maze design of a previous study which found no cost to decision success by faster (bolder) individuals. We used a similar design but increased the size of the maze and incorporated an additional choice in the form of a third maze arm. We found, in accordance with cognitive style expectations, that individuals who were consistently slower to emerge from the start chamber made fewer errors than fish that emerged faster. Activity in an open field test, however, did not show evidence of a relationship with decision success, possibly due to the low number of repeated observations per fish in this separate assay. Our results provide further empirical support for the cognitive styles hypothesis and highlight important methodological aspects to consider in studies of inter-individual differences in cognition.</p>","PeriodicalId":8840,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Ecology","volume":"36 1","pages":"arae097"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11631196/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arae097","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The "cognitive styles" hypothesis suggests that individual differences in behavior are associated with variation in cognitive performance via underlying speed-accuracy trade-offs. While this is supported, in part, by a growing body of evidence, some studies did not find the expected relationships between behavioral type and cognitive performance. In some cases, this may reflect methodological limitations rather than the absence of a true relationship. The physical design of the testing arena and the number of choices offered in an assay can hinder our ability to detect inter-individual differences in cognitive performance. Here, we re-investigated the cognitive styles hypothesis in threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), adapting the maze design of a previous study which found no cost to decision success by faster (bolder) individuals. We used a similar design but increased the size of the maze and incorporated an additional choice in the form of a third maze arm. We found, in accordance with cognitive style expectations, that individuals who were consistently slower to emerge from the start chamber made fewer errors than fish that emerged faster. Activity in an open field test, however, did not show evidence of a relationship with decision success, possibly due to the low number of repeated observations per fish in this separate assay. Our results provide further empirical support for the cognitive styles hypothesis and highlight important methodological aspects to consider in studies of inter-individual differences in cognition.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Behavioral Ecology
Behavioral Ecology 环境科学-动物学
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
93
审稿时长
3.0 months
期刊介绍: Studies on the whole range of behaving organisms, including plants, invertebrates, vertebrates, and humans, are included. Behavioral Ecology construes the field in its broadest sense to include 1) the use of ecological and evolutionary processes to explain the occurrence and adaptive significance of behavior patterns; 2) the use of behavioral processes to predict ecological patterns, and 3) empirical, comparative analyses relating behavior to the environment in which it occurs.
期刊最新文献
Effects of experimental nest treatment with herbs on ectoparasites and body condition of nestlings. A reinvestigation of cognitive styles in sticklebacks: decision success varies with behavioral type. Reduced fitness of secondary females in a polygynous species: a 32-yr study of Savannah sparrows. No evidence for phenotypic condition-dependent ejaculate allocation in response to sperm competition in a seed beetle. I remember you! Multicomponent warning signals and predator memory.
×
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