9 种有蹄类动物的数量判别:个体在区分数量时会考虑物品的数量和大小

IF 2.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Cognition Pub Date : 2024-10-14 DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105979
Alina Schaffer , Alvaro L. Caicoya , Anja Widdig , Ruben Holland , Federica Amici
{"title":"9 种有蹄类动物的数量判别:个体在区分数量时会考虑物品的数量和大小","authors":"Alina Schaffer ,&nbsp;Alvaro L. Caicoya ,&nbsp;Anja Widdig ,&nbsp;Ruben Holland ,&nbsp;Federica Amici","doi":"10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105979","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The ability to discriminate quantities is crucial for humans and other animals, by allowing individuals to maximize food intake and successfully navigate in their social environment. Here, we used a comprehensive approach to compare quantity discrimination abilities (i.e. ability to compare sets with different quantities of identical items, reliance on item size and spatial distribution, existence of irrational biases) in 9 different species of ungulates and provide novel insight into the socio-ecological conditions that might favor their emergence. We tested a total of 37 captive subjects including goats (<em>Capra aegagrus hircus)</em>, llamas (<em>Lama glama)</em>, guanacos (<em>Lama guanicoe)</em>, Grevy's zebras (<em>Equus grevyi),</em> Chapman's zebras (<em>Equus burchelli chapmanni)</em>, rhinos (<em>Diceros bicornis michaeli)</em>, giraffes (<em>Giraffa camelopardalis rothschildi)</em>, bison (<em>Bison bonasus)</em> and buffalos (<em>Syncerus caffer nanus</em>). Our results revealed that subjects were able to discriminate quantities when presented with two sets of food items that could differ in number, size and partially density. When presented with sets containing a different number of identical food items, subjects successfully selected the set with more items, with performance overall decreasing when sets had higher ratios (e.g., 1:3 vs 1:5). In addition, subjects could successfully maximize their food intake when both sets had the same number of items, but items had different sizes. However, performance decreased at chance levels when varying both the number of items and their size or distribution. Giraffes performed better than other species in most conditions, and we found no evidence for an irrational bias toward sets with more, smaller items or denser distributions. Overall, our study provides a first comparative assessment of quantity discrimination skills in several ungulate species.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48455,"journal":{"name":"Cognition","volume":"254 ","pages":"Article 105979"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantity discrimination in 9 ungulate species: Individuals take item number and size into account to discriminate quantities\",\"authors\":\"Alina Schaffer ,&nbsp;Alvaro L. Caicoya ,&nbsp;Anja Widdig ,&nbsp;Ruben Holland ,&nbsp;Federica Amici\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105979\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The ability to discriminate quantities is crucial for humans and other animals, by allowing individuals to maximize food intake and successfully navigate in their social environment. Here, we used a comprehensive approach to compare quantity discrimination abilities (i.e. ability to compare sets with different quantities of identical items, reliance on item size and spatial distribution, existence of irrational biases) in 9 different species of ungulates and provide novel insight into the socio-ecological conditions that might favor their emergence. We tested a total of 37 captive subjects including goats (<em>Capra aegagrus hircus)</em>, llamas (<em>Lama glama)</em>, guanacos (<em>Lama guanicoe)</em>, Grevy's zebras (<em>Equus grevyi),</em> Chapman's zebras (<em>Equus burchelli chapmanni)</em>, rhinos (<em>Diceros bicornis michaeli)</em>, giraffes (<em>Giraffa camelopardalis rothschildi)</em>, bison (<em>Bison bonasus)</em> and buffalos (<em>Syncerus caffer nanus</em>). Our results revealed that subjects were able to discriminate quantities when presented with two sets of food items that could differ in number, size and partially density. When presented with sets containing a different number of identical food items, subjects successfully selected the set with more items, with performance overall decreasing when sets had higher ratios (e.g., 1:3 vs 1:5). In addition, subjects could successfully maximize their food intake when both sets had the same number of items, but items had different sizes. However, performance decreased at chance levels when varying both the number of items and their size or distribution. Giraffes performed better than other species in most conditions, and we found no evidence for an irrational bias toward sets with more, smaller items or denser distributions. Overall, our study provides a first comparative assessment of quantity discrimination skills in several ungulate species.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognition\",\"volume\":\"254 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105979\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027724002658\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027724002658","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

数量辨别能力对人类和其他动物至关重要,它能使个体最大限度地摄取食物,并成功地在社会环境中游刃有余。在这里,我们采用了一种综合方法来比较 9 种不同蹄类动物的数量辨别能力(即比较具有不同数量相同物品的集合的能力、对物品大小和空间分布的依赖性、是否存在非理性偏差),并对可能有利于其出现的社会生态条件提供了新的见解。我们一共测试了 37 个圈养对象,包括山羊(Capra aegagrus hircus)、骆马(Lama glama)、羚牛(Lama guanicoe)、格瑞斑马(Equus grevyi)和查普曼斑马(Chapman's zebras)、查普曼斑马(Equus burchelli chapmanni)、犀牛(Diceros bicornis michaeli)、长颈鹿(Giraffa camelopardalis rothschildi)、野牛(Bison bonasus)和水牛(Syncerus caffer nanus)。我们的研究结果表明,当两组食物的数量、大小和部分密度不同时,受试者能够区分数量。当一组食物中含有不同数量的相同食物时,受试者会成功地选择含有较多食物的一组,而当两组食物的比例较高时(如 1:3 与 1:5),受试者的整体表现会下降。此外,当两组食物的数量相同,但大小不同时,受试者也能成功地将食物摄入量最大化。然而,当物品数量、大小或分布都不同时,受试者的表现就会下降到偶然水平。在大多数情况下,长颈鹿的表现都优于其他物种,而且我们没有发现任何证据表明长颈鹿会不合理地偏向于选择物品数量更多、更小或分布更密集的食物组。总之,我们的研究首次对几种蹄类动物的数量辨别能力进行了比较评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Quantity discrimination in 9 ungulate species: Individuals take item number and size into account to discriminate quantities
The ability to discriminate quantities is crucial for humans and other animals, by allowing individuals to maximize food intake and successfully navigate in their social environment. Here, we used a comprehensive approach to compare quantity discrimination abilities (i.e. ability to compare sets with different quantities of identical items, reliance on item size and spatial distribution, existence of irrational biases) in 9 different species of ungulates and provide novel insight into the socio-ecological conditions that might favor their emergence. We tested a total of 37 captive subjects including goats (Capra aegagrus hircus), llamas (Lama glama), guanacos (Lama guanicoe), Grevy's zebras (Equus grevyi), Chapman's zebras (Equus burchelli chapmanni), rhinos (Diceros bicornis michaeli), giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis rothschildi), bison (Bison bonasus) and buffalos (Syncerus caffer nanus). Our results revealed that subjects were able to discriminate quantities when presented with two sets of food items that could differ in number, size and partially density. When presented with sets containing a different number of identical food items, subjects successfully selected the set with more items, with performance overall decreasing when sets had higher ratios (e.g., 1:3 vs 1:5). In addition, subjects could successfully maximize their food intake when both sets had the same number of items, but items had different sizes. However, performance decreased at chance levels when varying both the number of items and their size or distribution. Giraffes performed better than other species in most conditions, and we found no evidence for an irrational bias toward sets with more, smaller items or denser distributions. Overall, our study provides a first comparative assessment of quantity discrimination skills in several ungulate species.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cognition
Cognition PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
283
期刊介绍: Cognition is an international journal that publishes theoretical and experimental papers on the study of the mind. It covers a wide variety of subjects concerning all the different aspects of cognition, ranging from biological and experimental studies to formal analysis. Contributions from the fields of psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, computer science, mathematics, ethology and philosophy are welcome in this journal provided that they have some bearing on the functioning of the mind. In addition, the journal serves as a forum for discussion of social and political aspects of cognitive science.
期刊最新文献
Morality on the road: Should machine drivers be more utilitarian than human drivers? Relative source credibility affects the continued influence effect: Evidence of rationality in the CIE. Decoding face identity: A reverse-correlation approach using deep learning How does color distribution learning affect goal-directed visuomotor behavior? Bias-free measure of distractor avoidance in visual search
×
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