Literature DB >> 27397575

Differential participation in cognitive tests is driven by personality, sex, body condition and experience.

Jayden O van Horik1, Ellis J G Langley2, Mark A Whiteside2, Joah R Madden2.   

Abstract

Failure to participate in a cognitive test may result in sampling biases when measuring inter-individual variation in cognitive performances in both captive and wild populations. This would be problematic if particular classes of individuals consistently fail to participate, skewing data and making generalisations or comparisons difficult. We presented 144 pheasant chicks, raised under standardised conditions, with a battery of cognitive tests to investigate whether sex, body condition or personality traits, measured by differences in latencies to explore a novel object, novel environment or unknown conspecific, predicted individual variation in voluntary participation across 37 test sessions. In general, participation increased across testing sessions, yet patterns of participation differed with sex and body condition. Males with a high body condition were more likely to participate in early test sessions compared to males with a low body condition or females. While participation among males in high body condition was consistent across sessions, males with a low body condition and females, regardless of body condition, were more likely to participate in later, rather than earlier sessions. Individuals also showed repeatable behaviours across time and different contexts, revealing not only that the exploration of novelty, but also that the order that subjects entered the testing arena and their latencies to acquire a freely available meal-worm reward may be considered valid proxies for different personality traits. During each test session, those individuals that were among the first to voluntarily enter the testing arena were more likely to participate in subsequent trials. Moreover, when isolated in the testing arena, individuals that rapidly acquired a freely available meal-worm, positioned on the testing apparatus, were also more likely to participate in a cognitive test. Our findings therefore reveal that sex, body condition and personality traits, along with habituation to the testing paradigms, all play important roles in determining whether or not particular individuals participate in cognitive tests. Sampling biases may therefore misrepresent our understanding of variation in cognitive performance in wild and captive populations, making individual differences in cognition difficult to interpret.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cognitive test battery; Motivation; Participation; Personality; Pheasant

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27397575     DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2016.07.001

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


  20 in total

1.  Cognition, personality, and stress in budgerigars, Melopsittacus undulatus.

Authors:  Angela Medina-García; Jodie M Jawor; Timothy F Wright
Journal:  Behav Ecol       Date:  2017-09-25       Impact factor: 2.671

Review 2.  Understanding the origin of number sense: a review of fish studies.

Authors:  Christian Agrillo; Angelo Bisazza
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2017-02-19       Impact factor: 6.237

3.  The effect of urbanization on innovation in spotted hyenas.

Authors:  Lily Johnson-Ulrich; Gidey Yirga; Robyn L Strong; Kay E Holekamp
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2021-03-09       Impact factor: 3.084

4.  Do detour tasks provide accurate assays of inhibitory control?

Authors:  Jayden O van Horik; Ellis J G Langley; Mark A Whiteside; Philippa R Laker; Christine E Beardsworth; Joah R Madden
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-03-28       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  A novel continuous inhibitory-control task: variation in individual performance by young pheasants (Phasianus colchicus).

Authors:  Christina Meier; Sara Raj Pant; Jayden O van Horik; Philippa R Laker; Ellis J G Langley; Mark A Whiteside; Frederick Verbruggen; Joah R Madden
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2017-08-09       Impact factor: 3.084

6.  Multiple factors affect discrimination learning performance, but not between-individual variation, in wild mixed-species flocks of birds.

Authors:  Michael S Reichert; Sam J Crofts; Gabrielle L Davidson; Josh A Firth; Ipek G Kulahci; John L Quinn
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2020-04-29       Impact factor: 2.963

Review 7.  Factors Influencing Individual Variation in Farm Animal Cognition and How to Account for These Statistically.

Authors:  Emily V Bushby; Mary Friel; Conor Goold; Helen Gray; Lauren Smith; Lisa M Collins
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2018-08-17

8.  Cognition in the field: comparison of reversal learning performance in captive and wild passerines.

Authors:  M Cauchoix; E Hermer; A S Chaine; J Morand-Ferron
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-10-11       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Are generalists more innovative than specialists? A comparison of innovative abilities in two wild sympatric mouse lemur species.

Authors:  Johanna Henke-von der Malsburg; Claudia Fichtel
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2018-08-15       Impact factor: 2.963

10.  Intra-individual variation in performance on novel variants of similar tasks influences single factor explanations of general cognitive processes.

Authors:  Jayden O van Horik; Ellis J G Langley; Mark A Whiteside; Philippa R Laker; Joah R Madden
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2018-07-11       Impact factor: 2.963

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.