|
|
Dunbar, R. I. M. (2009). The social brain hypothesis and its implications for social evolution. Annals of Human Biology, 36(5), 562–572.
Abstract: The social brain hypothesis was proposed as an explanation for the fact that primates have unusually large brains for body size compared to all other vertebrates: Primates evolved large brains to manage their unusually complex social systems. Although this proposal has been generalized to all vertebrate taxa as an explanation for brain evolution, recent analyses suggest that the social brain hypothesis takes a very different form in other mammals and birds than it does in anthropoid primates. In primates, there is a quantitative relationship between brain size and social group size (group size is a monotonic function of brain size), presumably because the cognitive demands of sociality place a constraint on the number of individuals that can be maintained in a coherent group. In other mammals and birds, the relationship is a qualitative one: Large brains are associated with categorical differences in mating system, with species that have pairbonded mating systems having the largest brains. It seems that anthropoid primates may have generalized the bonding processes that characterize monogamous pairbonds to other non-reproductive relationships (?friendships?), thereby giving rise to the quantitative relationship between group size and brain size that we find in this taxon. This raises issues about why bonded relationships are cognitively so demanding (and, indeed, raises questions about what a bonded relationship actually is), and when and why primates undertook this change in social style.
|
|
|
|
Greenberg, R. (2003). The role of neophobia and neophilia in the development of innovative behavour in birds. In S. M. Reader and K. N. Laland (Ed.), Animal Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
|
|
|
|
Reader, S. M., & MacDonald, K. (2003). Environmental variability and primate behavioural flexibiity. In S. M. Reader, & K. L. Laland (Eds.), Animal Innovation (pp. 83–116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
|
|
|
|
Harlow, H. F. (1950). Learning and satiation of response in intrinsically motivated complex puzzle performance by monkeys. J Comp Physiol Psychol, 43(4), 289–294.
Abstract: Two rhesus monkeys, given 60 two-hour sessions with a six-device mechanical puzzle showed clear evidence of learning, the curve showing ratio of incorrect to correct responses appearing quite comparable to similar curves obtained during externally rewarded situations. When, on the thirteenth day of tests, the subjects were presented with the puzzle 100 times at 6-minute intervals, the number of devices manipulated decreased regularly throughout the day, although there was no significant change in the number of times the problem assembly was attacked.
|
|
|
|
Hagen, K., & Broom, D. M. (2004). Emotional reactions to learning in cattle. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 85(3), 203–213.
Abstract: It has been suggested that during instrumental learning, animals are likely to react emotionally to the reinforcer. They may in addition react emotionally to their own achievements. These reactions are of interest with regard to the animals' capacity for self-awareness. Therefore, we devised a yoked control experiment involving the acquisition of an operant task. We aimed to identify the emotional reactions of young cattle to their own learning and to separate these from reactions to a food reward. Twelve Holstein-Friesian heifers aged 7-12 months were divided into two groups. Heifers in the experimental group were conditioned over a 14-day period to press a panel in order to open a gate for access to a food reward. For heifers in the control group, the gate opened after a delay equal to their matched partner's latency to open it. To allow for observation of the heifers' movements during locomotion after the gate had opened, there was a 15m distance in the form of a race from the gate to the food trough. The heart rate of the heifers, and their behaviour when moving along the race towards the food reward were measured. When experimental heifers made clear improvements in learning, they were more likely than on other occasions to have higher heart rates and tended to move more vigorously along the race in comparison with their controls. This experiment found some, albeit inconclusive, indication that cattle may react emotionally to their own learning improvement.
|
|
|
|
Preiszner, B., Vincze, E., Seress, G., Papp, S., Bókony, V., Liker, A., et al. (2013). Necessity or capacity? Physiological state predicts problem-solving performance in house sparrows. Behav. Ecol., 25(1), 124–135.
Abstract: Innovative behaviors such as exploiting novel food sources can grant significant fitness benefits for animals, yet little is known about the mechanisms driving such phenomena, and the role of physiology is virtually unexplored in wild species. Two hypotheses predict opposing effects of physiological state on innovation success. On one hand, poor physiological condition may promote innovations by forcing individuals with poor competitive abilities to invent alternative solutions. On the other hand, superior physiological condition may ensure greater cognitive capacity and thereby better problem-solving and learning performance. To test these hypotheses, we studied the behavior of wild-caught house sparrows (Passer domesticus) in 4 novel tasks of food acquisition, one of which was presented to the birds in repeated trials, and we investigated the relationships of individual performance with relevant physiological traits. We found that problem-solving performance across the 4 tasks was moderately consistent within individuals. Birds with lower integrated levels of corticosterone, the main avian stress hormone, solved the most difficult task faster and were more efficient learners in the repeated task than birds with higher corticosterone levels. Birds with higher concentration of total glutathione, a key antioxidant, solved 2 relatively easy tasks faster, whereas birds with fewer coccidian parasites tended to solve the difficult task more quickly. Our results, thus, indicate that aspects of physiological state influence problem-solving performance in a context-dependent manner, and these effects on problem-solving capacity, probably including cognitive abilities, are more likely to drive individual innovation success than necessity due to poor condition.
|
|
|
|
Bateson, P. (2014). Play, playfulness, creativity and innovation. Anim. Behav. Cogn., 1(2), 99–112.
|
|
|
|
Birch, H. G. (1945). The relation of previous experience to insightful problem-solving. J Comp Psychol, 38, 367–383.
|
|
|
|
Thornton Alex, & Lukas Dieter. (2012). Individual variation in cognitive performance: developmental and evolutionary perspectives. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 367(1603), 2773–2783.
|
|
|
|
Griffin, A. S., & Guez, D. (2014). Innovation and problem solving: A review of common mechanisms. Behav. Process., 109, 121–134.
Abstract: Behavioural innovations have become central to our thinking about how animals adjust to changing environments. It is now well established that animals vary in their ability to innovate, but understanding why remains a challenge. This is because innovations are rare, so studying innovation requires alternative experimental assays that create opportunities for animals to express their ability to invent new behaviours, or use pre-existing ones in new contexts. Problem solving of extractive foraging tasks has been put forward as a suitable experimental assay. We review the rapidly expanding literature on problem solving of extractive foraging tasks in order to better understand to what extent the processes underpinning problem solving, and the factors influencing problem solving, are in line with those predicted, and found, to underpin and influence innovation in the wild. Our aim is to determine whether problem solving can be used as an experimental proxy of innovation. We find that in most respects, problem solving is determined by the same underpinning mechanisms, and is influenced by the same factors, as those predicted to underpin, and to influence, innovation. We conclude that problem solving is a valid experimental assay for studying innovation, propose a conceptual model of problem solving in which motor diversity plays a more central role than has been considered to date, and provide recommendations for future research using problem solving to investigate innovation. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: Cognition in the wild.
|
|
