4.2 Article

A single factor explanation for associative learning performance on colour discrimination problems in common pheasants (Phasianus colchicus)

期刊

INTELLIGENCE
卷 74, 期 -, 页码 53-61

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2018.07.001

关键词

General intelligence; Associative learning; Reversal learning

资金

  1. ERC consolidator grant [616474]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It remains unclear whether performance of non-human animals on cognitive test batteries can be explained by domain general cognitive processes, as is found in humans. The persistence of this dispute is likely to stem from a lack of clarity of the psychological or neural processes involved. One broadly accepted cognitive process, that may predict performance in a range of psychometric tasks, is associative learning. We therefore investigated intra-individual performances on tasks that incorporate processes of associative learning, by assessing the speed of acquisition and reversal learning in up to 187 pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) on four related binary colour discrimination tasks. We found a strong, positive significant bivariate relationship between an individual's acquisition and reversal learning performances on one cue set. Weak, positive significant bivariate relationships were also found between an individual's performance on pairs of reversal tasks and between the acquisition and reversal performances on different cue sets. A single factor, robust to parallel analysis, explained 36% of variation in performance across tasks. Inter-individual variation could not be explained by differential prior experience, age, sex or body condition. We propose that a single factor explanation, which we call 'a', summarises the covariance among scores obtained from these visual discrimination tasks, as they all assess capacities for associative learning. We argue that 'a' may represent an underlying cognitive ability exhibited by an individual, which manifests across a variety of tasks requiring associative processes.

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

4.2
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