|
|
Seed AM, Tebbich S, Emery NJ, & Clayton NS. (2006). Investigating physical cognition in rooks (Corvus frugilegus). Curr. Biol., 16(7), 697–701.
Abstract: Summary Although animals (particularly tool-users) are capable of solving physical tasks in the laboratory and the degree to which they understand them in terms of their underlying physical forces is a matter of contention. Here, using a new paradigm, the two-trap tube task, we report the performance of non-tool-using rooks. In contrast to the low success rates of previous studies using trap-tube problems , , and , seven out of eight rooks solved the initial task, and did so rapidly. Instead of the usual, conceptually flawed control, we used a series of novel transfer tasks to test for understanding. All seven transferred their solution across a change in stimuli. However, six out of seven were unable to transfer to two further tasks, which did not share any one visual constant. One female was able to solve these further transfer tasks. Her result is suggestive evidence that rooks are capable of sophisticated physical cognition, if not through an understanding of unobservable forces and , perhaps through rule abstraction. Our results highlight the need to investigate cognitive mechanisms other than causal understanding in studying animal physical cognition.
|
|
|
|
Tebbich Sabine, Griffin Andrea S., Peschl Markus F., & Sterelny Kim. (2016). From mechanisms to function: an integrated framework of animal innovation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 371(1690), 20150195.
Abstract: Animal innovations range from the discovery of novel food types to the invention of completely novel behaviours. Innovations can give access to new opportunities, and thus enable innovating agents to invade and create novel niches. This in turn can pave the way for morphological adaptation and adaptive radiation. The mechanisms that make innovations possible are probably as diverse as the innovations themselves. So too are their evolutionary consequences. Perhaps because of this diversity, we lack a unifying framework that links mechanism to function. We propose a framework for animal innovation that describes the interactions between mechanism, fitness benefit and evolutionary significance, and which suggests an expanded range of experimental approaches. In doing so, we split innovation into factors (components and phases) that can be manipulated systematically, and which can be investigated both experimentally and with correlational studies. We apply this framework to a selection of cases, showing how it helps us ask more precise questions and design more revealing experiments.
|
|
