4.6 Article

Blue tits are outperformed by great tits in a test of motor inhibition, and experience does not improve their performance

期刊

ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.221176

关键词

motor inhibition; transparent cylinder task; Paridae; transparency experience

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Motor inhibition ability was compared between two closely related passerines that share the same habitat. Blue tits performed worse than great tits in a transparent cylinder task and did not improve their performance after experience with a transparent cylinder-like object, unlike the great tits. This performance difference may be due to differences in foraging behavior between these species.
Motor inhibition refers to the ability to inhibit immediate responses in favour of adaptive actions that are mediated by executive functions. This ability may be an indication of general cognitive ability in animals and is important for advanced cognitive functions. In this study, our aim was to compare motor inhibition ability of two closely related passerines that share the same habitat. To do this, we tested motor inhibition ability using a transparent cylinder task in blue tits in the same way as we previously tested great tits. To test whether the experience of transparent objects would affect the performance of these species differently, both in the present experiment using blue tits and our previous one on great tits, we divided 33 wild-caught individuals into three different treatment groups with 11 birds each. Before the test we allowed one group to experience a transparent cylindrical object, one group to experience a transparent wall and a third group was kept naive. In general, blue tits performed worse than great tits, and unlike the great tits, they did not improve their performance after experience with a transparent cylinder-like object. The performance difference may stem from difference in foraging behaviour between these species.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据