4.3 Article

Sequential and simultaneous choices: Testing the diet selection and sequential choice models

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL PROCESSES
卷 80, 期 3, 页码 218-223

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2008.12.001

关键词

Diet selection; Optimal foraging; Starlings; Sequential choices; Sturnus vulgaris

资金

  1. Programme Alpan (the European Union program of High Level Scholarships for Latin America) [E04D031814AR]
  2. ORS Scheme Award UK
  3. National Science Foundation
  4. BBSRC [BB/G007144/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/G007144/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigate simultaneous and sequential choices in starlings, using Charnov's Diet Choice Model (DCM) and Shapiro, Siller and Kacelnik's Sequential Choice Model (SCM) to integrate function and mechanism. During a training phase, starlings encountered one food-related option per trial (A, B or R) in random sequence and with equal probability. A and B delivered food rewards after programmed delays (shorter for A), while R ('rejection') moved directly to the next trial without reward. In this phase we measured latencies to respond. In a later, choice, phase, birds encountered the pairs A-B, A-R and B-R, the first implementing a simultaneous choice and the second and third sequential choices. The DCM predicts when R should be chosen to maximize intake rate, and SCM uses latencies of the training phase to predict choices between any pair of options in the choice phase. The predictions of both models coincided, and both successfully predicted the birds' preferences. The DCM does not deal with partial preferences, while the SCM does, and experimental results were strongly correlated to this model's predictions. We believe that the SCM may expose a very general mechanism of animal choice, and that its wider domain of success reflects the greater ecological significance of sequential over simultaneous choices. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.3
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