Literature DB >> 33150473

Numerical averaging in mice.

Ezgi Gür1,2, Yalçın Akın Duyan1,3, Fuat Balcı4,5.   

Abstract

Rodents can be trained to associate different durations with different stimuli (e.g., light/sound). When the associated stimuli are presented together, maximal responding is observed around the average of individual durations (akin to averaging). The current study investigated whether mice can also average independently trained numerosities. Mice were initially trained to make 10 or 20 lever presses on a single (run) lever to obtain a reward and each fixed-ratio schedule was signaled either with an auditory or visual stimulus. Then, mice were trained to press another lever to obtain the reward after they responded on the run lever for the minimum number of presses [Fixed Consecutive Number (FCN)-10 or -20 trials] signaled by the corresponding discriminative stimulus. Following this training, FCN trials with the compound stimulus were introduced to test the counting behavior of mice when they encountered conflicting information regarding the number of responses required to obtain the reward. Our results showed that the numbers of responses on these compound test trials were around the average of the number of responses in FCN-10 and FCN-20 trials particularly when the auditory stimulus was associated with a fewer number of required responses. The counting strategy explained the behavior of the majority of the mice in the FCN-Compound test trials (as opposed to the timing strategy). The number of responses in FCN-Compound trials was accounted for equally well by the arithmetic, geometric, and Bayesian averages of the number of responses observed in FCN-10 and FCN-20 trials.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Averaging; Counting; Cue integration; Mice; Number; Numerosity

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33150473     DOI: 10.1007/s10071-020-01444-6

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


  50 in total

1.  The ventriloquist effect results from near-optimal bimodal integration.

Authors:  David Alais; David Burr
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2004-02-03       Impact factor: 10.834

2.  Are you early or late?: Temporal error monitoring.

Authors:  Başak Akdoğan; Fuat Balcı
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2017-01-12

Review 3.  Bayesian integration of spatial information.

Authors:  Ken Cheng; Sara J Shettleworth; Janellen Huttenlocher; John J Rieser
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 17.737

4.  Overshadowing and stimulus duration.

Authors:  Dómhnall J Jennings; Charlotte Bonardi; Kimberly Kirkpatrick
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  2007-10

5.  Comparator mechanisms and conditioned inhibition: conditioned stimulus preexposure disrupts Pavlovian conditioned inhibition but not explicitly unpaired inhibition.

Authors:  B X Friedman; A P Blaisdell; M Escobar; R R Miller
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  1998-10

6.  Averaging temporal duration and spatial position.

Authors:  K Cheng; M L Spetch; P Miceli
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  1996-04

7.  Mice and rats fail to integrate exogenous timing noise into their time-based decisions.

Authors:  Dilara Berkay; David Freestone; Fuat Balcı
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2016-09-19       Impact factor: 3.084

8.  Stimulus probability effects on temporal bisection performance of mice (Mus musculus).

Authors:  Başak Akdoğan; Fuat Balcı
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2015-08-05       Impact factor: 3.084

9.  Optimal temporal risk assessment.

Authors:  Fuat Balci; David Freestone; Patrick Simen; Laura Desouza; Jonathan D Cohen; Philip Holmes
Journal:  Front Integr Neurosci       Date:  2011-09-27

10.  Individual differences in non-symbolic numerical abilities predict mathematical achievements but contradict ATOM.

Authors:  Christian Agrillo; Laura Piffer; Andrea Adriano
Journal:  Behav Brain Funct       Date:  2013-07-01       Impact factor: 3.759

View more
  1 in total

1.  Count-based decision-making in mice: numerosity vs. stimulus control.

Authors:  Pınar Toptaş; Ezgi Gür; Fuat Balcı
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2022-07-17       Impact factor: 2.899

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.