Inhibitory control tests in non-human animals: validity, reliability, and perspectives.

IF 11.7 1区 生物学 Q1 BIOLOGY
Louise Loyant, Luke Collins, Marine Joly
{"title":"Inhibitory control tests in non-human animals: validity, reliability, and perspectives.","authors":"Louise Loyant, Luke Collins, Marine Joly","doi":"10.1111/brv.70055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Inhibitory control, the ability to control impulsive or pre-learned behaviour in order to reach a more rewarding goal, is essential in many aspects of normal life. In non-human animals, better inhibitory control performances have been associated with a larger brain, better problem-solving skills, and fitness benefits. This crucial cognitive ability has been studied in a wide range of fields (psychology, neurosciences, animal cognition) and has been tested in several animal classes from insects to mammals. Unfortunately, unlike in human test psychology, the common paradigms designed to measure inhibitory control in non-human animals often suffer from a lack of validity and reliability and have yielded mixed results. Therefore, the nature of inhibitory control, either defined as a common ability or a suite of distinct processes, is still debated. Besides, the evolutionary processes shaping the variation in inhibitory control, often tested using a single task, are still poorly understood and the relative influences of ecological, anatomical or social factors as evolutionary drivers of this ability remain unclear. Finally, it is only recently that researchers have focused efforts on the factors necessary for the evolution of inhibitory control, that is individual variation in inhibitory control performance, heritability of this trait and fitness benefits. Hence, our main objective herein is to conduct a review of the existing literature to discuss conceptual and methodological challenges faced by researchers wanting to study inhibitory control in animals. We then suggest tools to tackle these challenges and propose a framework to build a valid and reliable measure of inhibitory processes. Next, we describe the requirements to study the selective pressures involved in this cognitive process in order to have a better understanding of its evolutionary underpinnings. We finally consider the future of interspecies comparative studies of inhibitory control.</p>","PeriodicalId":133,"journal":{"name":"Biological Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":11.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biological Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.70055","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Inhibitory control, the ability to control impulsive or pre-learned behaviour in order to reach a more rewarding goal, is essential in many aspects of normal life. In non-human animals, better inhibitory control performances have been associated with a larger brain, better problem-solving skills, and fitness benefits. This crucial cognitive ability has been studied in a wide range of fields (psychology, neurosciences, animal cognition) and has been tested in several animal classes from insects to mammals. Unfortunately, unlike in human test psychology, the common paradigms designed to measure inhibitory control in non-human animals often suffer from a lack of validity and reliability and have yielded mixed results. Therefore, the nature of inhibitory control, either defined as a common ability or a suite of distinct processes, is still debated. Besides, the evolutionary processes shaping the variation in inhibitory control, often tested using a single task, are still poorly understood and the relative influences of ecological, anatomical or social factors as evolutionary drivers of this ability remain unclear. Finally, it is only recently that researchers have focused efforts on the factors necessary for the evolution of inhibitory control, that is individual variation in inhibitory control performance, heritability of this trait and fitness benefits. Hence, our main objective herein is to conduct a review of the existing literature to discuss conceptual and methodological challenges faced by researchers wanting to study inhibitory control in animals. We then suggest tools to tackle these challenges and propose a framework to build a valid and reliable measure of inhibitory processes. Next, we describe the requirements to study the selective pressures involved in this cognitive process in order to have a better understanding of its evolutionary underpinnings. We finally consider the future of interspecies comparative studies of inhibitory control.

非人类动物的抑制控制试验:效度、信度和前景。
抑制控制,即控制冲动或预先学习的行为以达到更有益的目标的能力,在日常生活的许多方面都是必不可少的。在非人类动物中,更好的抑制控制表现与更大的大脑、更好的解决问题的能力和健康益处有关。这种至关重要的认知能力已经在广泛的领域(心理学、神经科学、动物认知)得到了研究,并在从昆虫到哺乳动物的几个动物类别中进行了测试。不幸的是,与人类测试心理学不同,设计用于测量非人类动物抑制控制的通用范式往往缺乏有效性和可靠性,并且产生了复杂的结果。因此,抑制性控制的本质,是被定义为一种共同的能力还是一系列不同的过程,仍然存在争议。此外,形成抑制控制变化的进化过程,通常使用单一任务进行测试,仍然知之甚少,生态、解剖或社会因素作为这种能力的进化驱动因素的相对影响仍然不清楚。最后,直到最近,研究人员才开始关注抑制控制进化的必要因素,即抑制控制表现的个体差异、该性状的遗传能力和适应性效益。因此,我们在此的主要目的是对现有文献进行回顾,以讨论想要研究动物抑制控制的研究人员所面临的概念和方法挑战。然后,我们提出了解决这些挑战的工具,并提出了一个框架,以建立一个有效和可靠的措施的抑制过程。接下来,我们描述了研究这一认知过程中涉及的选择压力的要求,以便更好地理解其进化基础。最后,我们展望了抑制控制的物种间比较研究的未来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Biological Reviews
Biological Reviews 生物-生物学
CiteScore
21.30
自引率
2.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Biological Reviews is a scientific journal that covers a wide range of topics in the biological sciences. It publishes several review articles per issue, which are aimed at both non-specialist biologists and researchers in the field. The articles are scholarly and include extensive bibliographies. Authors are instructed to be aware of the diverse readership and write their articles accordingly. The reviews in Biological Reviews serve as comprehensive introductions to specific fields, presenting the current state of the art and highlighting gaps in knowledge. Each article can be up to 20,000 words long and includes an abstract, a thorough introduction, and a statement of conclusions. The journal focuses on publishing synthetic reviews, which are based on existing literature and address important biological questions. These reviews are interesting to a broad readership and are timely, often related to fast-moving fields or new discoveries. A key aspect of a synthetic review is that it goes beyond simply compiling information and instead analyzes the collected data to create a new theoretical or conceptual framework that can significantly impact the field. Biological Reviews is abstracted and indexed in various databases, including Abstracts on Hygiene & Communicable Diseases, Academic Search, AgBiotech News & Information, AgBiotechNet, AGRICOLA Database, GeoRef, Global Health, SCOPUS, Weed Abstracts, and Reaction Citation Index, among others.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信