4.5 Article

'Aesop's fable' experiments demonstrate trial-and-error learning in birds, but no causal understanding

期刊

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
卷 123, 期 -, 页码 239-247

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.10.029

关键词

Aesop's fable experiment; causal cognition; causal understanding; corvid; trial-and-error learning

资金

  1. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation [2015.0005]
  2. CUNY Graduate Center mid-career fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Experiments inspired by Aesop's fable The crow and the pitcher have been suggested to show that some birds (rooks, Corvus frugilegus, New Caledonian crows, Corvus moneduloides, and Eurasian jays, Garrulus glandarius) understand cause-effect relationships pertaining to water displacement. For example, the birds may prefer to drop stones in water rather than in sand in order to retrieve a floating food morsel, suggesting that they understand that only the level of water can be so raised. Here we re-evaluate the evidence for causal understanding in all published experiments (23 928 choices by 36 individuals). We first show that commonly employed statistical methods cannot disentangle the birds' initial performance on a task (which is taken as an indicator of causal understanding) from trial-and-error learning that may occur during the course of the experiment. We overcome this shortcoming with a new statistical analysis that quantifies initial performance and learning effects separately. We present robust evidence of trialand-error learning in many tasks, and of an initial preference in a few. We also show that both seeming demonstrations of causal understanding and of lack of it can be understood based on established properties of instrumental learning. We conclude that Aesop's fable experiments have not yet produced evidence of causal understanding, and we suggest how the experimental designs can be modified to yield better tests of causal cognition. (C) 2016 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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