Foraging location preferences reflect memory interference associated with spatial learning tasks in a food-caching bird

IF 2.3 2区 生物学 Q2 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Lauren M. Benedict , Virginia K. Heinen , Joseph F. Welklin , Benjamin R. Sonnenberg , Lauren E. Whitenack , Eli S. Bridge , Vladimir V. Pravosudov
{"title":"Foraging location preferences reflect memory interference associated with spatial learning tasks in a food-caching bird","authors":"Lauren M. Benedict ,&nbsp;Virginia K. Heinen ,&nbsp;Joseph F. Welklin ,&nbsp;Benjamin R. Sonnenberg ,&nbsp;Lauren E. Whitenack ,&nbsp;Eli S. Bridge ,&nbsp;Vladimir V. Pravosudov","doi":"10.1016/j.anbehav.2024.123052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Strong memories interfere with learning new information through proactive interference, potentially contributing to a trade-off between retaining older memories and acquiring newer ones. Due to mixed evidence for such a trade-off, it is unclear to what extent proactive interference may impact fitness-related behaviours in wild populations. Here, we explored the effects of proactive interference on memory retention and acquisition in wild mountain chickadees, <em>Poecile gambeli</em>, by assessing foraging behaviour at feeder arrays after birds had completed a spatial learning and memory task and a subsequent reversal learning task and when all feeders provided food. Overall, post-testing foraging behaviour was consistent with predictions of proactive interference. Chickadees that learned the location of a food reward better in the first spatial learning and memory task later foraged more from the first task's rewarding location and less from the reversal task's rewarding location, compared to birds that performed worse. In contrast, chickadees that learned the new information better in the reversal learning task later foraged more from the reversal task's rewarding location and less from the initial memory task's rewarding location. These results suggest that interference from strong memories had a lasting effect on foraging preferences.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50788,"journal":{"name":"Animal Behaviour","volume":"221 ","pages":"Article 123052"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal Behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347224003634","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Strong memories interfere with learning new information through proactive interference, potentially contributing to a trade-off between retaining older memories and acquiring newer ones. Due to mixed evidence for such a trade-off, it is unclear to what extent proactive interference may impact fitness-related behaviours in wild populations. Here, we explored the effects of proactive interference on memory retention and acquisition in wild mountain chickadees, Poecile gambeli, by assessing foraging behaviour at feeder arrays after birds had completed a spatial learning and memory task and a subsequent reversal learning task and when all feeders provided food. Overall, post-testing foraging behaviour was consistent with predictions of proactive interference. Chickadees that learned the location of a food reward better in the first spatial learning and memory task later foraged more from the first task's rewarding location and less from the reversal task's rewarding location, compared to birds that performed worse. In contrast, chickadees that learned the new information better in the reversal learning task later foraged more from the reversal task's rewarding location and less from the initial memory task's rewarding location. These results suggest that interference from strong memories had a lasting effect on foraging preferences.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Animal Behaviour
Animal Behaviour 生物-动物学
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
8.00%
发文量
236
审稿时长
10.2 weeks
期刊介绍: Growing interest in behavioural biology and the international reputation of Animal Behaviour prompted an expansion to monthly publication in 1989. Animal Behaviour continues to be the journal of choice for biologists, ethologists, psychologists, physiologists, and veterinarians with an interest in the subject.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信