4.5 Article

Subproblem learning and reversal of a multidimensional visual cue in a lizard: evidence for behavioural flexibility?

期刊

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
卷 144, 期 -, 页码 17-26

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2018.07.018

关键词

cognition; discrimination learning; ID/ED task; reptile; set shifting

资金

  1. ARC [DP130102998]
  2. Macquarie University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Behavioural flexibility, the ability to adjust behaviour to environmental change by adapting existing skills to novel situations, is key to coping with, for example, complex social interactions, seasonal changes in food availability or detecting predators. We tested the tree skink, Egernia striolata, a family-living skink from eastern Australia, in a set-shifting paradigm of eight colour/shape discriminations including reversals, an intradimensional acquisition of a new colour/shape and extradimensional shift from colour to shape (and vice versa). Skinks could learn to discriminate between colour/shape pairs and reverse this initial stimuluse-reward association; however, they showed no significant decrease in the probability of making a correct choice in the extradimensional shift suggesting that they did not form an attentional set. Subjects appear to have learnt each stage as a new problem instead of generalizing stimuli into specific dimensions (set formation). In conclusion, tree skinks solved a discrimination reversal by focusing their attention towards visual stimuli and flexibly adjusting their choice behaviour accordingly. These lizards learned to use multidimensional visual stimuli to find a food reward but did not generalize stimuli into dimensions. Furthermore, this study is the first to test for set shifting in a lizard species and thereby allows us to extend set-shifting theory to a new taxon for comparison with primates, rodents, a bird and a turtle. (c) 2018 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