Literature DB >> 26669600

Formal models in animal-metacognition research: the problem of interpreting animals' behavior.

J David Smith1, Alexandria C Zakrzewski2, Barbara A Church3.   

Abstract

Ongoing research explores whether animals have precursors to metacognition-that is, the capacity to monitor mental states or cognitive processes. Comparative psychologists have tested apes, monkeys, rats, pigeons, and a dolphin using perceptual, memory, foraging, and information-seeking paradigms. The consensus is that some species have a functional analog to human metacognition. Recently, though, associative modelers have used formal-mathematical models hoping to describe animals' "metacognitive" performances in associative-behaviorist ways. We evaluate these attempts to reify formal models as proof of particular explanations of animal cognition. These attempts misunderstand the content and proper application of models. They embody mistakes of scientific reasoning. They blur fundamental distinctions in understanding animal cognition. They impede theoretical development. In contrast, an energetic empirical enterprise is achieving strong success in describing the psychology underlying animals' metacognitive performances. We argue that this careful empirical work is the clear path to useful theoretical development. The issues raised here about formal modeling-in the domain of animal metacognition-potentially extend to biobehavioral research more broadly.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Associative learning; Comparative psychology; Metacognition; Metamemory; Modeling; Primate cognition

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26669600      PMCID: PMC4909597          DOI: 10.3758/s13423-015-0985-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  46 in total

1.  Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) immediately generalize the uncertain response.

Authors:  David A Washburn; J David Smith; Wendy E Shields
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  2006-04

2.  Exemplar theory's predicted typicality gradient can be tested and disconfirmed.

Authors:  J David Smith
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2002-09

3.  Redundant food searches by capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella): a failure of metacognition?

Authors:  Annika Paukner; James R Anderson; Kazuo Fujita
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2005-09-24       Impact factor: 3.084

4.  Three-year-old children can access their own memory to guide responses on a visual matching task.

Authors:  Frances K Balcomb; LouAnn Gerken
Journal:  Dev Sci       Date:  2008-09

5.  The dynamics of free calcium in dendritic spines in response to repetitive synaptic input.

Authors:  E Gamble; C Koch
Journal:  Science       Date:  1987-06-05       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 6.  Dopamine and synaptic plasticity in the neostriatum.

Authors:  G W Arbuthnott; C A Ingham; J R Wickens
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 2.610

7.  Dissociating uncertainty responses and reinforcement signals in the comparative study of uncertainty monitoring.

Authors:  J David Smith; Michael J Beran; Joshua S Redford; David A Washburn
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2006-05

8.  Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) discriminate between knowing and not knowing and collect information as needed before acting.

Authors:  Robert R Hampton; Aaron Zivin; Elisabeth A Murray
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2004-04-23       Impact factor: 3.084

9.  Metamemory in tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella).

Authors:  Kazuo Fujita
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2009-02-26       Impact factor: 3.084

10.  Working memory load differentially affects tip-of-the-tongue states and feeling-of-knowing judgments.

Authors:  Bennett L Schwartz
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2008-01
View more
  8 in total

1.  Simultaneous versus prospective/retrospective uncertainty monitoring: The effect of response competition across cognitive levels.

Authors:  Barbara A Church; Brooke N Jackson; Michael J Beran; J David Smith
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn       Date:  2019-04-25       Impact factor: 2.478

2.  A metacognitive illusion in monkeys.

Authors:  Stephen Ferrigno; Nate Kornell; Jessica F Cantlon
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2017-09-13       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Metacognition in dogs: Do dogs know they could be wrong?

Authors:  Julia Belger; Juliane Bräuer
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 1.986

4.  Testing for Metacognitive Responding Using an Odor-based Delayed Match-to-Sample Test in Rats.

Authors:  Keith A Lee; Aidan J Preston; Taylor B Wise; Victoria L Templer
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2018-06-18       Impact factor: 1.355

Review 5.  Towards a comparative science of emotion: Affect and consciousness in humans and animals.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Paul; Shlomi Sher; Marco Tamietto; Piotr Winkielman; Michael T Mendl
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2019-11-26       Impact factor: 8.989

Review 6.  Computational animal welfare: towards cognitive architecture models of animal sentience, emotion and wellbeing.

Authors:  Sergey Budaev; Tore S Kristiansen; Jarl Giske; Sigrunn Eliassen
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2020-12-23       Impact factor: 2.963

7.  The hidden side of animal cognition research: Scientists' attitudes toward bias, replicability and scientific practice.

Authors:  Benjamin G Farrar; Ljerka Ostojić; Nicola S Clayton
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-08-31       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Replications, Comparisons, Sampling and the Problem of Representativeness in Animal Cognition Research.

Authors:  Benjamin G Farrar; Konstantinos Voudouris; Nicola S Clayton
Journal:  Anim Behav Cogn       Date:  2021-05
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.