Literature DB >> 22989930

Rats (Rattus norvegicus) and pigeons (Columbia livia) are sensitive to the distance to food, but only rats request more food when distance increases.

Mark P Reilly1, Diana Posadas-Sánchez, Lauren C Kettle, Peter R Killeen.   

Abstract

Three experiments investigated foraging by rats and pigeons. In Experiment 1, each response on a manipulandum delivered food to a cup, with the distance between the manipulandum and the cup varying across conditions. The number of responses made before traveling to collect and eat the food increased with distance for rats, but not for pigeons. In Experiment 2, two manipulanda were placed at different distances from a fixed food source; both pigeons and rats preferentially used the manipulandum closest to the food source. Experiment 3 was a systematic replication of Experiment 1 with pigeons. In different conditions, each peck on the left key increased the upcoming hopper duration by 0.5, 1.5 or 2.5s. Completing a ratio requirement on the right key of 1, 4, 8, 16 or 32 pecks, depending on the condition, then produced the food hopper for a duration that depended on the number of prior left pecks. As the ratio requirement increased on the right key, pigeons responded more on the left key and earned more food. Overall, the results replicate previous research, underlining similarities and differences between these species. The results are discussed in terms of optimal foraging, reinforcer sensitivity and delay discounting.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22989930      PMCID: PMC3532893          DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2012.09.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Processes        ISSN: 0376-6357            Impact factor:   1.777


  36 in total

1.  Tradeoffs among delay, rate, and amount of reinforcement.

Authors: 
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2000-03-31       Impact factor: 1.777

Review 2.  Specious reward: a behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control.

Authors:  G Ainslie
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1975-07       Impact factor: 17.737

3.  Pigeons shift their preference toward locations of food that take more effort to obtain.

Authors:  Andrea M Friedrich; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2004-11-30       Impact factor: 1.777

4.  Conservation, choice, and the concurrent fixed-ratio schedule.

Authors:  N Shapiro; J Allison
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1978-03       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  Incentive theory: IV. Magnitude of reward.

Authors:  P R Killeen
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1985-05       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Choice and foraging.

Authors:  N Abarca; E Fantino
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1982-09       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  Animal foraging: More than met the eye.

Authors:  R A Vásquez; A Kacelnik
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 17.712

8.  Scaling pigeons' choice of feeds: bigger is better.

Authors:  P R Killeen; H Cate; T Tran
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 2.468

9.  An analysis of travel costs on transport of load and nest building in golden hamster.

Authors:  Rogerio F. Guerra; Cesar Ades
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2002-03-28       Impact factor: 1.777

10.  Foraging by rats: Intuitions, models, data.

Authors:  P R Killeen; M Riggsford
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 1.777

View more
  3 in total

1.  Spatial discrimination reversal and incremental repeated acquisition in adolescent and adult BALB/c mice.

Authors:  Andrew Nathanael Shen; Derek A Pope; Blake A Hutsell; M Christopher Newland
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2015-06-05       Impact factor: 1.777

2.  Applicability to foraging simulation of a reinforcement schedule controlling the response energy of pigeons.

Authors:  Masanori Kono
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 1.986

3.  Captive chimpanzee foraging in a social setting: a test of problem solving, flexibility, and spatial discounting.

Authors:  Lydia M Hopper; Laura M Kurtycz; Stephen R Ross; Kristin E Bonnie
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2015-03-17       Impact factor: 2.984

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.