{"title":"大鼠在自然觅食模拟的次优选择程序中的表现。","authors":"Fernanda González-Barriga, Vladimir Orduña","doi":"10.1007/s10071-024-01913-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Rats and pigeons have shown striking differences in their behavior in the suboptimal choice procedure: while pigeons show a strong and consistent preference for the discriminative alternative, most studies performed with rats have found optimal preferences, and in the cases in which suboptimal preferences have been reported, those results have not been replicated. Currently, there is no consensus about the reasons for these discrepant results between species, but different explanations have been proposed either with an empirical base or exclusively in theoretical terms. In the latter category it has been proposed that the discrepancy might have arisen because of differences in the relationship between the natural foraging response of each species, and the response required in the laboratory. For analyzing this possibility, we conducted two experiments carried out within a maze that was specifically designed to allow rats to display behaviors related to their natural foraging. In experiment 1, we explored rats’ preferences when facing a discriminative alternative with probability of reinforcement (p) = 0.5, and a non-discriminative alternative with <i>p</i> = .75. In experiment 2, we evaluated preferences when the discriminative alternative had <i>p</i> = .20 and the non-discriminative had <i>p</i> = .50, rats were evaluated in a closed economy, with longer terminal links, and were allowed to escape from the outcome found. In both studies, rats showed a strong preference for the non-discriminative alternative and showed very high levels of discrimination between the positive and the negative outcomes of the discriminative alternative.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7879,"journal":{"name":"Animal Cognition","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10071-024-01913-2.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rats’ performance in a suboptimal choice procedure implemented in a natural-foraging analogue\",\"authors\":\"Fernanda González-Barriga, Vladimir Orduña\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10071-024-01913-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Rats and pigeons have shown striking differences in their behavior in the suboptimal choice procedure: while pigeons show a strong and consistent preference for the discriminative alternative, most studies performed with rats have found optimal preferences, and in the cases in which suboptimal preferences have been reported, those results have not been replicated. Currently, there is no consensus about the reasons for these discrepant results between species, but different explanations have been proposed either with an empirical base or exclusively in theoretical terms. In the latter category it has been proposed that the discrepancy might have arisen because of differences in the relationship between the natural foraging response of each species, and the response required in the laboratory. For analyzing this possibility, we conducted two experiments carried out within a maze that was specifically designed to allow rats to display behaviors related to their natural foraging. In experiment 1, we explored rats’ preferences when facing a discriminative alternative with probability of reinforcement (p) = 0.5, and a non-discriminative alternative with <i>p</i> = .75. In experiment 2, we evaluated preferences when the discriminative alternative had <i>p</i> = .20 and the non-discriminative had <i>p</i> = .50, rats were evaluated in a closed economy, with longer terminal links, and were allowed to escape from the outcome found. In both studies, rats showed a strong preference for the non-discriminative alternative and showed very high levels of discrimination between the positive and the negative outcomes of the discriminative alternative.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7879,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Animal Cognition\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10071-024-01913-2.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Animal Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-024-01913-2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-024-01913-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
大鼠和鸽子在次优选择过程中的行为显示出惊人的差异:鸽子表现出强烈而一致的对鉴别性替代品的偏好,而对大鼠进行的大多数研究却发现了最优偏好,在报告了次优偏好的情况下,这些结果却没有得到重复。目前,对于不同物种之间出现这些差异结果的原因还没有达成共识,但已经提出了不同的解释,有的以经验为基础,有的则完全以理论为基础。在后一种情况下,有人认为出现差异的原因可能是每个物种的自然觅食反应与实验室要求的反应之间的关系不同。为了分析这种可能性,我们在一个迷宫中进行了两次实验,这个迷宫是专门为让大鼠表现出与自然觅食相关的行为而设计的。在实验 1 中,我们探讨了大鼠在面对强化概率 (p) = 0.5 的区别性选择和 p = 0.75 的非区别性选择时的偏好。在实验 2 中,我们评估了当辨别性替代品的强化概率 p = 0.20 和非辨别性替代品的强化概率 p = 0.50 时大鼠的偏好,大鼠在封闭的经济环境中接受评估,终端环节较长,并允许大鼠从发现的结果中逃脱。在这两项研究中,大鼠都表现出了对非歧视性选择的强烈偏好,并对歧视性选择的正反结果表现出了极高的辨别能力。
Rats’ performance in a suboptimal choice procedure implemented in a natural-foraging analogue
Rats and pigeons have shown striking differences in their behavior in the suboptimal choice procedure: while pigeons show a strong and consistent preference for the discriminative alternative, most studies performed with rats have found optimal preferences, and in the cases in which suboptimal preferences have been reported, those results have not been replicated. Currently, there is no consensus about the reasons for these discrepant results between species, but different explanations have been proposed either with an empirical base or exclusively in theoretical terms. In the latter category it has been proposed that the discrepancy might have arisen because of differences in the relationship between the natural foraging response of each species, and the response required in the laboratory. For analyzing this possibility, we conducted two experiments carried out within a maze that was specifically designed to allow rats to display behaviors related to their natural foraging. In experiment 1, we explored rats’ preferences when facing a discriminative alternative with probability of reinforcement (p) = 0.5, and a non-discriminative alternative with p = .75. In experiment 2, we evaluated preferences when the discriminative alternative had p = .20 and the non-discriminative had p = .50, rats were evaluated in a closed economy, with longer terminal links, and were allowed to escape from the outcome found. In both studies, rats showed a strong preference for the non-discriminative alternative and showed very high levels of discrimination between the positive and the negative outcomes of the discriminative alternative.
期刊介绍:
Animal Cognition is an interdisciplinary journal offering current research from many disciplines (ethology, behavioral ecology, animal behavior and learning, cognitive sciences, comparative psychology and evolutionary psychology) on all aspects of animal (and human) cognition in an evolutionary framework.
Animal Cognition publishes original empirical and theoretical work, reviews, methods papers, short communications and correspondence on the mechanisms and evolution of biologically rooted cognitive-intellectual structures.
The journal explores animal time perception and use; causality detection; innate reaction patterns and innate bases of learning; numerical competence and frequency expectancies; symbol use; communication; problem solving, animal thinking and use of tools, and the modularity of the mind.