Literature DB >> 22692435

Putting the elephant back in the herd: elephant relative quantity judgments match those of other species.

Bonnie M Perdue1, Catherine F Talbot, Adam M Stone, Michael J Beran.   

Abstract

The ability to discriminate between quantities has been observed in many species. Typically, when an animal is given a choice between two sets of food, accurate performance (i.e., choosing the larger amount) decreases as the ratio between two quantities increases. A recent study reported that elephants did not exhibit ratio effects, suggesting that elephants may process quantitative information in a qualitatively different way from all other nonhuman species that have been tested (Irie-Sugimoto et al. in Anim Cogn 12:193-199, 2009). However, the results of this study were confounded by several methodological issues. We tested two African elephants (Loxodonta africana) to more thoroughly investigate relative quantity judgment in this species. In contrast to the previous study, we found evidence of ratio effects for visible and nonvisible sequentially presented sets of food. Thus, elephants appear to represent and compare quantities in much the same way as other species, including humans when they are prevented from counting. Performance supports an accumulator model in which quantities are represented as analog magnitudes. Furthermore, we found no effect of absolute magnitude on performance, providing support against an object-file model explanation of quantity judgment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22692435     DOI: 10.1007/s10071-012-0521-y

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


  37 in total

1.  Abstract numerical discrimination learning in rats.

Authors:  Tohru Taniuchi; Junko Sugihara; Mariko Wakashima; Makiko Kamijo
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 1.986

2.  Elephants have a nose for quantity.

Authors:  Joshua M Plotnik; Daniel L Brubaker; Rachel Dale; Lydia N Tiller; Hannah S Mumby; Nicola S Clayton
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-06-03       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Does the approximate number system serve as a foundation for symbolic mathematics?

Authors:  Emily Szkudlarek; Elizabeth M Brannon
Journal:  Lang Learn Dev       Date:  2017-01-31

Review 4.  Numerical assessment in the wild: insights from social carnivores.

Authors:  Sarah Benson-Amram; Geoff Gilfillan; Karen McComb
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2017-02-19       Impact factor: 6.237

5.  Bears "Count" Too: Quantity Estimation and Comparison in Black Bears (Ursus Americanus).

Authors:  Jennifer Vonk; Michael J Beran
Journal:  Anim Behav       Date:  2012-07-01       Impact factor: 2.844

6.  Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) treat small and large numbers of items similarly during a relative quantity judgment task.

Authors:  Michael J Beran; Audrey E Parrish
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-08

7.  Giraffes go for more: a quantity discrimination study in giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis).

Authors:  Montserrat Colell; Federica Amici; Alvaro L Caicoya; Ruben Holland; Conrad Ensenyat
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2020-10-30       Impact factor: 3.084

8.  Visual nesting of stimuli affects rhesus monkeys' (Macaca mulatta) quantity judgments in a bisection task.

Authors:  Michael J Beran; Audrey E Parrish
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  Female meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus, respond differently to the scent marks of multiple male conspecifics.

Authors:  Michael H Ferkin; Nicholas J Hobbs
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2013-11-06       Impact factor: 3.084

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.