Literature DB >> 19777274

How do African grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus) perform on a delay of gratification task?

Sarah-Jane Vick1, Dalila Bovet, James R Anderson.   

Abstract

Humans and other animals often find it difficult to choose a delayed reward over an immediate one, even when the delay leads to increased pay-offs. Using a visible incremental reward procedure, we tested the ability of three grey parrots to maintain delay of gratification for an increasingly valuable food pay-off. Up to five sunflower seeds were placed within the parrot's reach, one at a time, at a rate of one seed per second. When the parrot took a seed the trial was ended and the birds consumed the accumulated seeds. Parrots were first tested in daily sessions of ten trials and then with single daily trials. For multiple trial sessions, all three parrots showed some limited improvement across 30 sessions. For single trial sessions, only one parrot showed any increase in seed acquisition across trials. This parrot was also able to consistently obtain two or more seeds per trial (across both multiple and single trial conditions) but was unable to able to wait 5 s to obtain the maximum number of seeds. This parrot was also tested on a slower rate of seed presentation, and this significantly reduced her mean seed acquisition in both multiple and single trial conditions, suggesting that both value of reward available and delay duration impact upon self-control. Further manipulation of both the visibility and proximity of seeds during delay maintenance had little impact upon tolerance of delays for both parrots tested in this condition. This task demanded not just a choice of delayed reward but the maintenance of delayed gratification and was clearly difficult for the parrots to learn; additional training or alternative paradigms are required to better understand the capacity for self-control in this and other species.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19777274     DOI: 10.1007/s10071-009-0284-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anim Cogn        ISSN: 1435-9448            Impact factor:   3.084


  19 in total

1.  Social inhibitory control in five lemur species.

Authors:  Rachna B Reddy; Evan L MacLean; Aaron A Sandel; Brian Hare
Journal:  Primates       Date:  2015-03-31       Impact factor: 2.163

2.  Goffin cockatoos wait for qualitative and quantitative gains but prefer 'better' to 'more'.

Authors:  A M I Auersperg; I B Laumer; T Bugnyar
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2013-03-13       Impact factor: 3.703

3.  Corvids can decide if a future exchange is worth waiting for.

Authors:  Valerie Dufour; Claudia A F Wascher; Anna Braun; Rachael Miller; Thomas Bugnyar
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2011-09-14       Impact factor: 3.703

4.  The hybrid delay task: can capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) sustain a delay after an initial choice to do so?

Authors:  Fabio Paglieri; Valentina Focaroli; Jessica Bramlett; Valeria Tierno; Joseph M McIntyre; Elsa Addessi; Theodore A Evans; Michael J Beran
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2012-12-26       Impact factor: 1.777

5.  Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) transfer tokens repeatedly with a partner to accumulate rewards in a self-control task.

Authors:  Audrey E Parrish; Bonnie M Perdue; Theodore A Evans; Michael J Beran
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 3.084

6.  Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) can wait, when they choose to: a study with the hybrid delay task.

Authors:  Michael J Beran; Theodore A Evans; Fabio Paglieri; Joseph M McIntyre; Elsa Addessi; William D Hopkins
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2013-06-18       Impact factor: 3.084

7.  Self-control assessments of capuchin monkeys with the rotating tray task and the accumulation task.

Authors:  Michael J Beran; Bonnie M Perdue; Mattea S Rossettie; Brielle T James; Will Whitham; Bradlyn Walker; Sara E Futch; Audrey E Parrish
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2016-06-11       Impact factor: 1.777

8.  Waiting for better, not for more: corvids respond to quality in two delay maintenance tasks.

Authors:  Friederike Hillemann; Thomas Bugnyar; Kurt Kotrschal; Claudia A F Wascher
Journal:  Anim Behav       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 2.844

9.  Spatial discounting of food and social rewards in guppies (poecilia reticulata).

Authors:  Nelly Mühlhoff; Jeffrey R Stevens; Simon M Reader
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2011-04-20

10.  Carrion crows cannot overcome impulsive choice in a quantitative exchange task.

Authors:  Claudia A F Wascher; Valerie Dufour; Thomas Bugnyar
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2012-04-17
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.