![]() ![]() The latter tasks designs have been limited to tool using primates. Chimpanzees ( Pan troglodytes) and an orangutan ( Pongo abelii) chose a tool over an immediate preferred food reward (grape) to use it 70 minutes later for obtaining a more preferred fruit soup 17. ![]() ![]() Correspondingly, in an exchange task tufted capuchins flexibly traded a food item for a tool solely if the tool could be used for obtaining food of higher quality 16. When the respective apparatus was not baited, all subjects immediately ate the initial rod-shaped food item 15. Despite the substantial number of studies on animal decision-making, only a few primate studies include tool use in their task design: Tufted capuchin monkeys ( Sapajus spp.) were able to delay eating a rod-shaped food (celery or pretzel) in order to use it as a tool to get access to a more preferred food (peanut butter in a tube). In natural contexts, all these decisions may also need to be traded off against an immediately available, but less preferred option. refs 11, 12, 13, 14), the reachability, as well as the presence and/or the functionality of available means to obtain a goal. In order to maximize profit an agent may, for example, need to take into account the predictability (e.g. Nevertheless, in decision-making processes in natural situations there are often more levels of relational complexity involved than merely deciding between an immediate and a delayed option. So far, among non-human animals, there is evidence that some primates, dogs, corvids and parrots can overcome immediate drives for more than a couple of seconds in order to maximize their future profits and can flexibly assess costs and benefits of an action before executing it (e.g. The ability to flexibly decide whether or not to sacrifice an immediate option in the prospect of a more profitable option is likely associated to high levels of delay tolerance and cognitive plasticity. The Goffin cockatoos’ ability to focus on relevant information was constrained when all task components (both food qualities, both apparatuses and both tools) were presented at the same time. As their performance levels remained stable across trials in all testing setups, this was unlikely the result of a learning effect. Furthermore, at the group level subjects maximized their profit by simultaneously considering both the quality of an immediate versus a delayed food reward (accessible with a tool) and the functionality of the available tool. Paralleling previous results in primates, most birds overcame immediate drives in favor of future gains some did so even if tool use involved additional work effort. Using a new experimental approach featuring two different types of tools, two apparatuses as well as two different types of reward, we investigated the Goffin cockatoos’ ability to make flexible and profitable decisions within five different setups. Decisions involving the use of tools may require an agent to consider more levels of relational complexity than merely deciding between an immediate and a delayed option. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |