No Evidence for Cross-Contextual Consistency in Spatial Cognition or Behavioral Flexibility in a Passerine

Although the evolution of cognitive differences among species has long been of interest in ecology, whether natural selection acts on cognitive processes within populations has only begun to receive similar attention. One of the key challenges is to understand how consistently cognitive traits within any one domain are expressed over time and across different contexts, as this has direct implications for the way in which selection might act on this variation. Animal studies typically measure a cognitive domain using only one task in one context and assume that this captures the likely expression of that domain in different contexts. This use of limited and restricted measures is not surprising because, from an ecologist’s perspective, cognitive tasks are laborious to employ, and if the measure requires learning a particular aspect of the task (e.g., reward type, cue availability, scale of testing), then it is difficult to repeat the task as the learning is context specific. Thus, our knowledge of whether individual differences in cognitive abilities are consistent across contexts is limited, and current evidence suggests that consistency is weak. We tested up to 32 wild great tits (Parus major) to characterize the consistency of two cognitive abilities, each in two different contexts: 1) spatial cognition at two different spatial scales, and 2) behavioral flexibility as performance in a detour reaching task and reversal learning in a spatial task. We found no evidence of a correlation between individuals’ performance in two measures of spatial cognition or two measures of behavioral flexibility. This suggests that cognitive performance is highly plastic and sensitive to differences across tasks, that variants of these well-known tasks may tap into different combinations of both cognitive and non-cognitive mechanisms, or that the tasks simply do not adequately measure each putative cognitive domain. Our results highlight the challenges of developing standardized cognitive assays to explain natural behavior and to understand the selective consequences of that variation.

[1]  Josh A. Firth,et al.  Multiple factors affect discrimination learning performance, but not between-individual variation, in wild mixed-species flocks of birds , 2020, Royal Society Open Science.

[2]  S. Healy,et al.  The hippocampus, spatial memory and food hoarding: a puzzle revisited. , 2005, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[3]  Judith M Burkart,et al.  Validity of Cognitive Tests for Non-human Animals: Pitfalls and Prospects , 2020, Frontiers in Psychology.

[4]  S. Healy,et al.  Differences in cue use and spatial memory in men and women , 2006, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[5]  Laura A. Kelley,et al.  Explanations for variation in cognitive ability: Behavioural ecology meets comparative cognition , 2009, Behavioural Processes.

[6]  Ella F Cole,et al.  Personality and problem-solving performance explain competitive ability in the wild , 2012, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[7]  A. Thornton,et al.  Individual variation in cognitive performance: developmental and evolutionary perspectives , 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[8]  Martin Schmelz,et al.  Cognitive test batteries in animal cognition research: evaluating the past, present and future of comparative psychometrics , 2017, Animal Cognition.

[9]  S. Healy,et al.  Spatial accuracy in food-storing and nonstoring birds , 1999, Animal Behaviour.

[10]  E. Cole,et al.  Individual variation in spontaneous problem-solving performance among wild great tits , 2011, Animal Behaviour.

[11]  M. Whiteside,et al.  A single factor explanation for associative learning performance on colour discrimination problems in common pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) , 2019, Intelligence.

[12]  Philippa R. Laker,et al.  Intra-individual variation in performance on novel variants of similar tasks influences single factor explanations of general cognitive processes , 2018, Royal Society Open Science.

[13]  A. Thornton,et al.  Cognitive performance is linked to group size and affects fitness in Australian magpies , 2018, Nature.

[14]  John L. Quinn,et al.  Who are the innovators? A field experiment with 2 passerine species , 2011 .

[15]  RUFOUS HUMMINGBIRDS' (SELASPHORUS RUFUS) MEMORY FOR FLOWERS : PATTERNS OR ACTUAL SPATIAL LOCATIONS? , 1998 .

[16]  Jelmer M. Samplonius,et al.  The roles of temperature, nest predators and information parasites for geographical variation in egg covering behaviour of tits (Paridae) , 2020, Journal of Biogeography.

[17]  S. Peters,et al.  Song repertoire size in male song sparrows correlates with detour reaching, but not with other cognitive measures , 2011, Animal Behaviour.

[18]  J. Vonk,et al.  Spatial memory in captive American black bears (Ursus americanus). , 2012, Journal of comparative psychology.

[19]  Martin A. Stoffel,et al.  rptR: repeatability estimation and variance decomposition by generalized linear mixed‐effects models , 2017 .

[20]  Kate V. Morgan,et al.  Individual differences in decision making by foraging hummingbirds , 2014, Behavioural Processes.

[21]  L. Lefebvre,et al.  Problem-solving performance is correlated with reproductive success in a wild bird population , 2013, Animal Behaviour.

[22]  Can Kabadayi,et al.  The detour paradigm in animal cognition , 2017, Animal Cognition.

[23]  R.,et al.  Spatial memory of Paridae : comparison of a storing and a non-storing species , the coal tit , Parus ater , and the great tit , P . major , 2006 .

[24]  Ella F Cole,et al.  Studying the evolutionary ecology of cognition in the wild: a review of practical and conceptual challenges , 2016, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[25]  Susan D. Healy,et al.  Measuring cognition will be difficult but worth it: a response to comments on Rowe and Healy , 2014 .

[26]  Breeding phenology, provisioning behaviour, and unusual patterns of life history variation across an anthropogenic heterogeneous landscape , 2018, Oecologia.

[27]  S. Lea,et al.  The repeatability of cognitive performance: a meta-analysis , 2018, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[28]  Valeria Anna Sovrano,et al.  Animals' use of landmarks and metric information to reorient: effects of the size of the experimental space , 2005, Cognition.

[29]  J. Call,et al.  Comparative psychometrics: establishing what differs is central to understanding what evolves , 2018, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[30]  Louis Lefebvre,et al.  What’s flexible in behavioral flexibility? , 2017 .

[31]  Kate L. Laskowski,et al.  The repeatability of behaviour: a meta-analysis , 2009, Animal Behaviour.

[32]  T. W. Pike,et al.  Environmentally induced changes to brain morphology predict cognitive performance , 2018, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[33]  J. Morand‐Ferron,et al.  The evolution of cognition in natural populations , 2015, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[34]  E. Bridge,et al.  Smart is the new sexy: female mountain chickadees increase reproductive investment when mated to males with better spatial cognition. , 2019, Ecology letters.

[35]  D S Olton,et al.  Spatial memory. , 1977, Scientific American.

[36]  Valeria Anna Sovrano,et al.  Spatial reorientation: the effects of space size on the encoding of landmark and geometry information , 2007, Animal Cognition.

[37]  M. Tomasello,et al.  The Structure of Individual Differences in the Cognitive Abilities of Children and Chimpanzees , 2010, Psychological science.

[38]  V. Pravosudov,et al.  Heritability and the evolution of cognitive traits , 2015 .

[39]  B. Sheldon,et al.  Data depth, data completeness, and their influence on quantitative genetic estimation in two contrasting bird populations , 2006, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[40]  E. Cole,et al.  Environmental and genetic determinants of innovativeness in a natural population of birds , 2016, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[41]  David J. Pritchard,et al.  Treating hummingbirds as feathered bees: a case of ethological cross-pollination , 2017, Biology Letters.

[42]  J. Madden,et al.  Performance in cognitive and problem-solving tasks in male spotted bowerbirds does not correlate with mating success , 2013, Animal Behaviour.

[43]  A. Thornton,et al.  Experimentally induced innovations lead to persistent culture via conformity in wild birds , 2014, Nature.

[44]  Alex Thornton,et al.  Toward wild psychometrics: linking individual cognitive differences to fitness , 2014 .

[45]  S. Healy,et al.  Taking an insect-inspired approach to bird navigation , 2018, Learning & Behavior.

[46]  Philippa R. Laker,et al.  Response learning confounds assays of inhibitory control on detour tasks , 2019, bioRxiv.

[47]  A. Thornton,et al.  Measuring and understanding individual differences in cognition , 2018, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[48]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[49]  D. Sherry,et al.  Cognition and the brain of brood parasitic cowbirds. , 2019, Integrative zoology.

[50]  S. Peters,et al.  Potential trade-off between vocal ornamentation and spatial ability in a songbird , 2013, Biology Letters.

[51]  Valeria Anna Sovrano,et al.  How fish do geometry in large and in small spaces , 2006, Animal Cognition.

[52]  Individual Differences in Long-term Cognitive Testi ng in a Group of Captive Chimpanzees , 2011 .

[53]  Jason Keagy,et al.  Male satin bowerbird problem-solving ability predicts mating success , 2009, Animal Behaviour.

[54]  Daniel R. Montello,et al.  Scale and Multiple Psychologies of Space , 1993, COSIT.

[55]  S. Healy,et al.  Spatial memory of paridae: comparison of a storing and a non-storing species, the coal tit, Parus ater, and the great tit, P. major , 1990, Animal Behaviour.

[56]  Maria C. Tello-Ramos,et al.  Memory in wild mountain chickadees from different elevations: comparing first-year birds with older survivors , 2018, Animal Behaviour.

[57]  N. Clayton,et al.  Wild psychometrics: evidence for ‘general’ cognitive performance in wild New Zealand robins, Petroica longipes , 2015, Animal Behaviour.

[58]  Geoffrey Hall,et al.  Animal cognition , 1985, Nature.

[59]  Susan D. Healy,et al.  Spatial Learning and Memory in Birds , 2004, Brain, Behavior and Evolution.

[60]  A. Guenther,et al.  Individual consistency in multiple cognitive performance: behavioural versus cognitive syndromes , 2017, Animal Behaviour.

[61]  Valeria Anna Sovrano,et al.  Modularity as a fish (Xenotoca eiseni) views it: conjoining geometric and nongeometric information for spatial reorientation. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[62]  T. A. Hurly,et al.  Wild hummingbirds require a consistent view of landmarks to pinpoint a goal location , 2018, Animal Behaviour.

[63]  M. J. Emerson,et al.  The Unity and Diversity of Executive Functions and Their Contributions to Complex “Frontal Lobe” Tasks: A Latent Variable Analysis , 2000, Cognitive Psychology.

[64]  Lars Chittka,et al.  The correlation of learning speed and natural foraging success in bumble-bees , 2008, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[65]  A. Hinks,et al.  Cognitive Ability Influences Reproductive Life History Variation in the Wild , 2012, Current Biology.

[66]  Philippa R. Laker,et al.  Heritability and correlations among learning and inhibitory control traits , 2020, Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology.

[67]  T. Robbins,et al.  Inhibition and impulsivity: Behavioral and neural basis of response control , 2013, Progress in Neurobiology.

[68]  J. Mappes,et al.  Investigating Müllerian mimicry: predator learning and variation in prey defences , 2007, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[69]  Xavier A. Harrison,et al.  Using observation-level random effects to model overdispersion in count data in ecology and evolution , 2014, PeerJ.

[70]  D. Kelly,et al.  Individual performance across motoric self-regulation tasks are not correlated for pet dogs , 2018, Learning & Behavior.

[71]  Susan D. Healy,et al.  Measuring variation in cognition , 2014 .

[72]  Joah R Madden,et al.  Do detour tasks provide accurate assays of inhibitory control? , 2018, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[73]  S. Peters,et al.  Song learning and cognitive ability are not consistently related in a songbird , 2017, Animal Cognition.

[74]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

[75]  L. Huber,et al.  Measures of Dogs' Inhibitory Control Abilities Do Not Correlate across Tasks , 2017, Front. Psychol..

[76]  Allison M. Barnard,et al.  The evolution of self-control , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[77]  Evan L. MacLean,et al.  Context specificity of inhibitory control in dogs , 2013, Animal Cognition.

[78]  Anthony E. Richardson,et al.  Spatial abilities at different scales: Individual differences in aptitude-test performance and spatial-layout learning , 2006 .

[79]  C. Rutz,et al.  How STRANGE are your study animals? , 2020, Nature.

[80]  D. Wheatcroft,et al.  Great tit responses to the calls of an unfamiliar species suggest conserved perception of call ordering , 2020, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[81]  E. Bridge,et al.  Natural Selection and Spatial Cognition in Wild Food-Caching Mountain Chickadees , 2019, Current Biology.