4.7 Article

Selective effects of conspecific movement on social preference in zebrafish (Danio rerio) using real-time 3D tracking and 3D animation

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-37579-y

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Zebrafish show social behavior that is a result of complex and interdependent interactions among conspecifics. Previous research lacked clear evidence on how specific conspecific movements contribute to preference for social stimuli. This research examined the dependency between individual fish's motion and a social-stimulus fish's motions and found that experimental fish preferred dependent and interactive movements.
Zebrafish show social behavior such as shoaling and schooling, which is a result of complex and interdependent interactions among conspecifics. Zebrafish social behavior is interdependent in the sense that one fish's behavior affects both conspecific behavior and, as a result, their own behavior. Previous research examined effects of the interdependent interactions on the preference for social stimulus but lacked clear evidence that specific conspecific movements were reinforcing. The present research examined whether dependency between individual experimental fish's motion and a social-stimulus fish's motions contributes to preference for the social stimulus. In Experiment 1, a 3D animated stimulus fish either chased individual experimental fish or was motionless, serving as dependent and independent motions, respectively. In Experiment 2, the stimulus fish either chased experimental fish, moved away, or moved independently of the experimental fish. In both experiments, experimental fish spent more time near the stimulus fish showing dependent and interactive movements, indicating preference for dependent motion over independent motion, and chasing over other motions. Implications of these results are discussed including a potential role of operant conditioning in the preference for social stimuli.

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

4.7
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