Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.3819/ccbr.2020.150007
A. Barber, A. Wilkinson, F. Montealegre-Z, Victoria F. Ratcliffe, K. Guo, D. Mills
Given the range of tasks that requires dogs and humans to work effectively together, it is important for us to appreciate the similarities and differences in hearing ability across the two species, as well as the limits of our knowledge of this comparative information. Humans often assume that dogs’ hearing abilities are similar to their own and try to communicate with them verbally as they do with other humans. In the first part of this review, we compare the auditory system of the two species in relation to their ability to function generally as a sound amplification and detection system before considering the specific capacities of the system in the second part. We then examine the factors that disturb hearing function before reviewing a range of potentially problematic behavioral responses that are closely associated with the functioning of the auditory system. Finally, we consider important aspects of comparative auditory perception and related cognitive processes. A major observation of this review is how little research has been done in investigating the auditory capabilities of the dog. There may be significant mismatches between what we expect dogs (and perhaps specific types of dog, given historic functional breed selection) can hear versus what they can actually hear. This has significant implications for what should be considered if we wish to select specific dogs for work associated with particular hearing abilities and to protect and maintain their hearing throughout life. Only with a more complete understanding of the dogs’ hearing ability compared with our own can we more fully appreciate perceptual and associated cognitive differences between the species alongside behavioral differences that might occur when we are exposed to a given soundscape.
{"title":"A comparison of hearing and auditory functioning between dogs and humans","authors":"A. Barber, A. Wilkinson, F. Montealegre-Z, Victoria F. Ratcliffe, K. Guo, D. Mills","doi":"10.3819/ccbr.2020.150007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3819/ccbr.2020.150007","url":null,"abstract":"Given the range of tasks that requires dogs and humans to work effectively together, it is important for us to appreciate the similarities and differences in hearing ability across the two species, as well as the limits of our knowledge of this comparative information. Humans often assume that dogs’ hearing abilities are similar to their own and try to communicate with them verbally as they do with other humans. In the first part of this review, we compare the auditory system of the two species in relation to their ability to function generally as a sound amplification and detection system before considering the specific capacities of the system in the second part. We then examine the factors that disturb hearing function before reviewing a range of potentially problematic behavioral responses that are closely associated with the functioning of the auditory system. Finally, we consider important aspects of comparative auditory perception and related cognitive processes. A major observation of this review is how little research has been done in investigating the auditory capabilities of the dog. There may be significant mismatches between what we expect dogs (and perhaps specific types of dog, given historic functional breed selection) can hear versus what they can actually hear. This has significant implications for what should be considered if we wish to select specific dogs for work associated with particular hearing abilities and to protect and maintain their hearing throughout life. Only with a more complete understanding of the dogs’ hearing ability compared with our own can we more fully appreciate perceptual and associated cognitive differences between the species alongside behavioral differences that might occur when we are exposed to a given soundscape.","PeriodicalId":44593,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70236051","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-01DOI: 10.3819/ccbr.2019.140003
Marilia Pinheiro de Carvalho, Cristina Santos, Catarina Soares, A. Machado
Zentall’s (2019) target article, “What suboptimal choice tells us about the control of behavior,” is in three parts. The first part reviews a set of studies that have yielded surprising findings: In relatively simple choice tasks, animals seem to behave irrationally by making suboptimal choices. The second part introduces a set of hypotheses to account for the surprising findings: Animals may behave according to a variety of heuristics that are adaptive in their natural environments but maladaptive in the contrived laboratory settings. The third part explains what suboptimal choice in fact tells us about the control of behavior. In this commentary we argue that Part 1 is timely, interesting, and important; that Part 2, potentially the article’s greatest contribution, includes imaginative, testable hypotheses alongside conceptually confused and even inconsistent hypotheses; and that Part 3 may be too vague to be useful. We conclude with some general remarks on the nature of the problems brought to our attention by the target article. Part 1. Suboptimal Choice as a Subset of Surprising Research Findings
{"title":"Meliorating the Suboptimal-Choice Argument","authors":"Marilia Pinheiro de Carvalho, Cristina Santos, Catarina Soares, A. Machado","doi":"10.3819/ccbr.2019.140003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3819/ccbr.2019.140003","url":null,"abstract":"Zentall’s (2019) target article, “What suboptimal choice tells us about the control of behavior,” is in three parts. The first part reviews a set of studies that have yielded surprising findings: In relatively simple choice tasks, animals seem to behave irrationally by making suboptimal choices. The second part introduces a set of hypotheses to account for the surprising findings: Animals may behave according to a variety of heuristics that are adaptive in their natural environments but maladaptive in the contrived laboratory settings. The third part explains what suboptimal choice in fact tells us about the control of behavior. In this commentary we argue that Part 1 is timely, interesting, and important; that Part 2, potentially the article’s greatest contribution, includes imaginative, testable hypotheses alongside conceptually confused and even inconsistent hypotheses; and that Part 3 may be too vague to be useful. We conclude with some general remarks on the nature of the problems brought to our attention by the target article. Part 1. Suboptimal Choice as a Subset of Surprising Research Findings","PeriodicalId":44593,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70235186","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-01DOI: 10.3819/CCBR.2019.140002
M. Beran
Zentall (2019) describes cases in which nonhuman animals show interesting failures in some kinds of choice tests. The failures are particularly valuable, he argues, for understanding the nature of choice behavior and why it may be adaptive in some contexts but then necessarily may look suboptimal in others. I agree that these are interesting test cases. I discuss some of the ways in which the presented results converge among themselves, and with some other choice tasks, on the idea that choices are made in contexts, and those contexts play as large a role as do the actual choice options themselves. Framing effects, temporal discounting, and motivation levels of choosers all lead to choice behavior that reflects bounded rationality, just as is true for humans. In this way, suboptimal choice is natural to expect in some instances, and potentially can be offset by manipulations to the environment in which the choice is made.
{"title":"All Hail Suboptimal Choice! Now, Can We \"Fix\" It?","authors":"M. Beran","doi":"10.3819/CCBR.2019.140002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3819/CCBR.2019.140002","url":null,"abstract":"Zentall (2019) describes cases in which nonhuman animals show interesting failures in some kinds of choice tests. The failures are particularly valuable, he argues, for understanding the nature of choice behavior and why it may be adaptive in some contexts but then necessarily may look suboptimal in others. I agree that these are interesting test cases. I discuss some of the ways in which the presented results converge among themselves, and with some other choice tasks, on the idea that choices are made in contexts, and those contexts play as large a role as do the actual choice options themselves. Framing effects, temporal discounting, and motivation levels of choosers all lead to choice behavior that reflects bounded rationality, just as is true for humans. In this way, suboptimal choice is natural to expect in some instances, and potentially can be offset by manipulations to the environment in which the choice is made.","PeriodicalId":44593,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70235593","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-01DOI: 10.3819/CCBR.2019.140004
Jeffrey M. Pisklak, M. A. McDevitt, R. Dunn
This commentary highlights, clarifies, and questions various historical and theoretical points in Thomas Zentall’s review “What Suboptimal Choice Tells Us About the Control of Behavior.” Particular attention is paid to what Zentall refers to as the “unskilled gambling” paradigm. We acknowledge additional contributions to the study of suboptimal choice and clarify some theoretical issues foundational to a behavioral approach. We also raise important questions about Zentall’s use of the concept of “contrast,” how it is related to previous contrast research, and how it fails to extend a very similar explanation that predates it.
{"title":"Clarifying Contrast, Acknowledging the Past, and Expanding the Focus","authors":"Jeffrey M. Pisklak, M. A. McDevitt, R. Dunn","doi":"10.3819/CCBR.2019.140004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3819/CCBR.2019.140004","url":null,"abstract":"This commentary highlights, clarifies, and questions various historical and theoretical points in Thomas Zentall’s review “What Suboptimal Choice Tells Us About the Control of Behavior.” Particular attention is paid to what Zentall refers to as the “unskilled gambling” paradigm. We acknowledge additional contributions to the study of suboptimal choice and clarify some theoretical issues foundational to a behavioral approach. We also raise important questions about Zentall’s use of the concept of “contrast,” how it is related to previous contrast research, and how it fails to extend a very similar explanation that predates it.","PeriodicalId":44593,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70235234","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-01DOI: 10.3819/CCBR.2019.140001
T. Zentall
When animals make decisions that are suboptimal, it helps us to identify the processes that have evolved to produce this behavior. In an earlier article, I discussed three examples of suboptimal choice or bias (Zentall, 2016): (a) sunk cost, the tendency to continue on a losing project because of the amount already invested; (b) unskilled gambling, in which the loss is greater than the return; and (c) justification of effort, the bias to prefer conditioned stimuli that in training required more effort to obtain. Here I discuss three additional examples of suboptimal choice that we have studied in animals: (a) when less is better, in which animals prefer one piece of food (one preferred item) over two pieces of food (one preferred item plus one less preferred item); (b) suboptimal choice on the ephemeral choice task, in which animals prefer one piece of food now over two pieces of the same food, one now but the second briefly delayed; and (c) suboptimal choice in the midsession reversal task, errors of anticipation and perseveration. Each of these examples may help to identify the relative limits on behavioral flexibility found when animals are exposed to conditions that may be different from those that they would normally encounter in their natural environment. They also may help us to understand the origins of similar behavior when it occurs in humans.
{"title":"What Suboptimal Choice Tells Us About the Control of Behavior","authors":"T. Zentall","doi":"10.3819/CCBR.2019.140001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3819/CCBR.2019.140001","url":null,"abstract":"When animals make decisions that are suboptimal, it helps us to identify the processes that have evolved to produce this behavior. In an earlier article, I discussed three examples of suboptimal choice or bias (Zentall, 2016): (a) sunk cost, the tendency to continue on a losing project because of the amount already invested; (b) unskilled gambling, in which the loss is greater than the return; and (c) justification of effort, the bias to prefer conditioned stimuli that in training required more effort to obtain. Here I discuss three additional examples of suboptimal choice that we have studied in animals: (a) when less is better, in which animals prefer one piece of food (one preferred item) over two pieces of food (one preferred item plus one less preferred item); (b) suboptimal choice on the ephemeral choice task, in which animals prefer one piece of food now over two pieces of the same food, one now but the second briefly delayed; and (c) suboptimal choice in the midsession reversal task, errors of anticipation and perseveration. Each of these examples may help to identify the relative limits on behavioral flexibility found when animals are exposed to conditions that may be different from those that they would normally encounter in their natural environment. They also may help us to understand the origins of similar behavior when it occurs in humans.","PeriodicalId":44593,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70235531","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-01DOI: 10.3819/ccbr.2019.140010
C. Troisi, D. Mills, A. Wilkinson, H. Zulch
{"title":"A Need for Greater Inclusivity and Diversity in Scent Detection Dog Research: A Reply to Lazarowski et al. and Byosiere et al.","authors":"C. Troisi, D. Mills, A. Wilkinson, H. Zulch","doi":"10.3819/ccbr.2019.140010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3819/ccbr.2019.140010","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44593,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70235202","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-01DOI: 10.3819/ccbr.2019.140009
Sarah-Elizabeth Byosiere, L. C. Feng, Nicholas J. Rutter
In the target article “Behavioral and Cognitive Factors That Affect the Success of Scent Detection Dogs,” Troisi, Mills, Wilkinson, and Zulch (2019) provide a review on the current state of research in scent detection dogs. Specifically, the authors highlight important factors underlying preparation and deployment of scent detection dogs that may influence individual variation within the population, as well as task-specific learning. As noted in the target article, dogs can be trained to detect a variety of scents (biological and nonbiological), which has led to the use and implementation of a variety of different preparation and deployment procedures (for an in-depth review, see Browne, Stafford, & Fordham, 2006). Even though these procedures are often Sarah-Elizabeth Byosiere School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Australia
{"title":"Factors that may affect the success of scent detection dogs: Exploring non-conventional models of preparation and deployment","authors":"Sarah-Elizabeth Byosiere, L. C. Feng, Nicholas J. Rutter","doi":"10.3819/ccbr.2019.140009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3819/ccbr.2019.140009","url":null,"abstract":"In the target article “Behavioral and Cognitive Factors That Affect the Success of Scent Detection Dogs,” Troisi, Mills, Wilkinson, and Zulch (2019) provide a review on the current state of research in scent detection dogs. Specifically, the authors highlight important factors underlying preparation and deployment of scent detection dogs that may influence individual variation within the population, as well as task-specific learning. As noted in the target article, dogs can be trained to detect a variety of scents (biological and nonbiological), which has led to the use and implementation of a variety of different preparation and deployment procedures (for an in-depth review, see Browne, Stafford, & Fordham, 2006). Even though these procedures are often Sarah-Elizabeth Byosiere School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Australia","PeriodicalId":44593,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70235161","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-01DOI: 10.3819/CCBR.2019.140007
C. Troisi, D. Mills, A. Wilkinson, H. Zulch
Scent detection dogs are used in a variety of contexts; however, very few dogs successfully complete their training, and many others are withdrawn from service prematurely due to both detection accuracy issues in the field and wider behavioral issues. This article aims to review our understanding of the factors affecting variation in scent detection dogs’ learning of the tasks and performance in the field. For this we deconstructed the scent detection task into its key behavioral elements and examined the literature relating to the factors affecting variation in the dogs’ success all across their development. We first consider factors that affect individuality and individual performance, in general, such as temperament, arousal, the handler–dog relationship, training regimes, and the housing and management of scent detections dogs. We then focus on tasks specific to scent detection dogs and critically appraise relevant literature relating to the learning and performance of these tasks by dogs. This includes prenatal and early life exposure and later environment, training regime, and the human–dog relationship, as well as performance limiting factors such as the need to pant in hot environments during work.
{"title":"Behavioral and Cognitive Factors That Affect the Success of Scent Detection Dogs","authors":"C. Troisi, D. Mills, A. Wilkinson, H. Zulch","doi":"10.3819/CCBR.2019.140007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3819/CCBR.2019.140007","url":null,"abstract":"Scent detection dogs are used in a variety of contexts; however, very few dogs successfully complete their training, and many others are withdrawn from service prematurely due to both detection accuracy issues in the field and wider behavioral issues. This article aims to review our understanding of the factors affecting variation in scent detection dogs’ learning of the tasks and performance in the field. For this we deconstructed the scent detection task into its key behavioral elements and examined the literature relating to the factors affecting variation in the dogs’ success all across their development. We first consider factors that affect individuality and individual performance, in general, such as temperament, arousal, the handler–dog relationship, training regimes, and the housing and management of scent detections dogs. We then focus on tasks specific to scent detection dogs and critically appraise relevant literature relating to the learning and performance of these tasks by dogs. This includes prenatal and early life exposure and later environment, training regime, and the human–dog relationship, as well as performance limiting factors such as the need to pant in hot environments during work.","PeriodicalId":44593,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70235557","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-01DOI: 10.3819/ccbr.2019.140006
T. Zentall
The commentaries appropriately mention boundary conditions for the less is more effect (Beran, this issue; Carvalho et al., this issue) and the caution that choice behavior that seems suboptimal in the laboratory may be optimal in nature (Vasconcelos et al., this issue). Pisklak et al. (this issue) object to my definition of contrast to describe the difference between probability (or magnitude) of reinforcement expected and obtained but they focus on only one kind of contrast, behavioral contrast. Carvalho et al. question how impulsivity can account for the failure to choose optimally in the ephemeral reward task. The justification comes from research on delay discounting (a measure of impulsivity) in which further delaying both the smaller sooner and the larger later reward can shift preference in the direction of optimality. The same occurs with the ephemeral reward task. With regard to the midsession reversal task, Carvalho et al. question our interpretation of the positive effect on accuracy of reducing the probability of reinforcement for correct choice of S2 (the correct stimulus during the second half of the session). They argue that according to our attentional account, reducing the probability of reinforcement for correct choice of S1 (the correct stimulus during the first half of the session) should have a similar effect. However, during that half of the session, choice of S2 would be an anticipatory error, thus not very helpful as a cue. Instead, we suggest that any manipulation that shifts attention from S2 to S1 (e.g., increasing the response requirement to S2) should improve task accuracy and it does. Finally, I suggest that evolved heuristics may account for an animal’s suboptimal choice but that an animal’s flexibility in dealing with a changing environment may be a useful ability to have and may be worth studying.
评论中适当地提到了边界条件，因为越少越有效(Beran，这个问题;Carvalho et al.，这个问题)以及在实验室中看似次优的选择行为在本质上可能是最优的(Vasconcelos et al.，这个问题)。Pisklak等人(本期)反对我对对比的定义，即描述期望和获得的强化概率(或强度)之间的差异，但他们只关注一种对比，即行为对比。Carvalho等人质疑冲动性如何解释短暂奖励任务中无法做出最佳选择的原因。其理由来自于对延迟折扣(一种衡量冲动的方法)的研究，其中进一步延迟较小的早奖励和较大的晚奖励都可以使偏好向最优方向转移。短暂奖励任务也是如此。关于中间反转任务，Carvalho等人质疑我们对减少正确选择S2(会话后半段的正确刺激)的强化概率对准确性的积极影响的解释。他们认为，根据我们的注意力解释，减少正确选择S1(会话前半段的正确刺激)的强化概率应该具有类似的效果。然而，在这一半的会话中，选择S2将是一个预期错误，因此不是很有帮助的线索。相反，我们建议任何将注意力从S2转移到S1的操作(例如，增加对S2的响应要求)都应该提高任务的准确性，并且确实如此。最后，我认为，进化的启发式可能解释了动物的次优选择，但动物应对不断变化的环境的灵活性可能是一种有用的能力，可能值得研究。
{"title":"The Case for a Heuristic Approach to Account for Suboptimal Choice","authors":"T. Zentall","doi":"10.3819/ccbr.2019.140006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3819/ccbr.2019.140006","url":null,"abstract":"The commentaries appropriately mention boundary conditions for the less is more effect (Beran, this issue; Carvalho et al., this issue) and the caution that choice behavior that seems suboptimal in the laboratory may be optimal in nature (Vasconcelos et al., this issue). Pisklak et al. (this issue) object to my definition of contrast to describe the difference between probability (or magnitude) of reinforcement expected and obtained but they focus on only one kind of contrast, behavioral contrast. Carvalho et al. question how impulsivity can account for the failure to choose optimally in the ephemeral reward task. The justification comes from research on delay discounting (a measure of impulsivity) in which further delaying both the smaller sooner and the larger later reward can shift preference in the direction of optimality. The same occurs with the ephemeral reward task. With regard to the midsession reversal task, Carvalho et al. question our interpretation of the positive effect on accuracy of reducing the probability of reinforcement for correct choice of S2 (the correct stimulus during the second half of the session). They argue that according to our attentional account, reducing the probability of reinforcement for correct choice of S1 (the correct stimulus during the first half of the session) should have a similar effect. However, during that half of the session, choice of S2 would be an anticipatory error, thus not very helpful as a cue. Instead, we suggest that any manipulation that shifts attention from S2 to S1 (e.g., increasing the response requirement to S2) should improve task accuracy and it does. Finally, I suggest that evolved heuristics may account for an animal’s suboptimal choice but that an animal’s flexibility in dealing with a changing environment may be a useful ability to have and may be worth studying.","PeriodicalId":44593,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70235454","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：