Animal Cognition

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 435–444 | Cite as

Specialised use of working memory by Portia africana, a spider-eating salticid

Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Using expectancy–violation methods, we investigated the role of working memory in the predatory strategy of Portia africana, a salticid spider from Kenya that preys by preference on other spiders. One of this predator’s tactics is to launch opportunistic leaping attacks on to other spiders in their webs. Focussing on this particular tactic, our experiments began with a test spider on a ramp facing a lure (dead prey spider mounted on a cork disc) that could be reached by leaping. After the test spider faced the lure for 30 s, we blocked the test spider’s view of the lure by lowering an opaque shutter before the spider leapt. When the shutter was raised 90 s later, either the same lure came into view again (control) or a different lure came into view (experimental: different prey type in same orientation or same prey type in different orientation). We recorded attack frequency (number of test spiders that leapt at the lure) and attack latency (time elapsing between shutter being raised and spiders initiating a leap). Attack latencies in control trials were not significantly different from attack latencies in experimental trials, regardless of whether it was prey type or prey orientation that changed in the experimental trials. However, compared with test spiders in the no-change control trials, significantly fewer test spiders leapt when prey type changed. There was no significant effect on attack frequency when prey orientation changed. These findings suggest that this predator represents prey type independently of prey orientation.

Keywords

Expectancy–violation Predatory versatility Prey classification Categorisation Mental rotation Representation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Stephene Abok Aluoch, Godfrey Otieno Sune and Jane Atieno Obonyo for their assistance at ICIPE. We are grateful to G. B. Edwards (Florida State Collection of Arthropods, Gainsville, Florida), Ansie Dippenaar-Schoeman (ARC–Plant Protection Research Institute, Pretoria) and Charles Warui (National Museums of Kenya) for their help with spider taxonomy. We also gratefully acknowledge support of grants from the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology (UOCX0903), the Royal Society of New Zealand (Marsden Fund (M1096, M1079) and James Cook Fellowship (E5097)), the National Geographic Society (8676–09, 6705–00) and the US National Institutes of Health (R01-AI077722).

References

  1. Baddeley A (2012) Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. Annu Rev Psychol 63:1–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown MF, Sayde JM (2013) Same/different discrimination by bumblebee colonies. Anim Cogn 16:117–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burge T (2010) Origins of objectivity. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collett TS (1982) Do toads plan routes? A study of the detour behavior of Bufo viridis. J Comp Physiol 146:261–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cross FR, Jackson RR (2009) Cross-modality priming of visual and olfactory selective attention by a spider that feeds indirectly on vertebrate blood. J Exp Biol 212:1869–1875PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cross FR, Jackson RR (2010a) Olfactory search-image use by a mosquito-eating predator. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:3173–3178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cross FR, Jackson RR (2010b) The attentive spider: search-image use by a mosquito-eating predator. Ethology 116:240–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cross FR, Jackson RR, Pollard SD (2008) Complex display behaviour of Evarcha culicivora, an East African mosquito-eating jumping spider. N Z J Zool 35:151–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Curio E (1976) The ethology of predation. Springer-Verlag, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Delius JD, Hollard VD (1995) Orientation invariant pattern recognition by pigeons (Columba livia) and humans (Homo sapiens). J Comp Psychol 109:278–290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dennett DC (1996) Kinds of minds: towards an understanding of consciousness. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Epstein R (1982) Representation: a concept that fills no gaps. Behav Brain Sci 5:377–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gallistel CR (1989) Animal cognition: the representation of space, time and number. Annu Rev Psychol 40:155–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gallistel CR (1990) Representations in animal cognition: an introduction. Cognition 37:1–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giurfa M, Zhang S, Jenett A, Menzel R, Srinivasan MV (2001) The concepts of ‘sameness’ and ‘difference’ in an insect. Nature 410:930–933PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gómez J-C (2005) Species comparative studies and cognitive development. Trends Cogn Sci 9:118–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harland DP, Li D, Jackson RR (2012) How jumping spiders see the world. In: Lazareva O, Shimizu T, Wasserman EA (eds) How animals see the world: comparative behavior, biology, and evolution of vision. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 133–164Google Scholar
  18. Hauser MD, MacNeilage P, Ware M (1996) Numerical representations in primates. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:1514–1517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Howell DC (2002) Statistical methods for psychology, 5th edn. Wadsworth, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  20. Jackson RR, Cross FR (2011) Spider cognition. Adv Insect Physiol 41:115–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jackson RR, Pollard SD (1996) Predatory behavior of jumping spiders. Annu Rev Entomol 41:287–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jackson RR, Clark RJ, Harland DP (2002) Behavioural and cognitive influences of kairomones on an araneophagic jumping spider. Behaviour 139:749–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jakob EM, Skow CD, Long S (2011) Plasticity, learning and cognition. In: Herberstein ME (ed) Spider behaviour: flexibility and versatility. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 307–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kamil AC, Bond AB (2006) Selective attention, priming, and foraging behavior. In: Wasserman EA, Zentall TR (eds) Comparative cognition: experimental explorations of animal intelligence. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 106–126Google Scholar
  25. Kosslyn SM, Ganis G, Thompson WL (2003) Mental imagery: against the nihilistic hypothesis. Trends Cogn Sci 7:109–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Land MF, Nilsson D-E (2012) Animal eyes, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Markman AB, Dietrich E (2000) In defense of representation. Cognit Psychol 40:138–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maunsell JHR (1995) The brain’s visual world: representation of visual targets in cerebral cortex. Science 270:764–768PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Neiworth JJ, Rilling ME (1987) A method for studying imagery in animals. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 13:203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Palmer SE (1999) Vision science: photons to phenomenology. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Peissig JJ, Goode T (2012) The recognition of rotated objects in animals. In: Lazareva O, Shimizu T, Wasserman EA (eds) How animals see the world: comparative behavior, biology, and evolution of vision. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 233–246Google Scholar
  32. Pepperberg IM (2002) The value of the Piagetian framework for comparative cognitive studies. Anim Cogn 5:177–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pepperberg IM, Kozak FA (1986) Object permanence in the African grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus). Anim Learn Behav 14:322–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pylyshyn ZW (2003a) Explaining mental imagery: now you see it, now you don’t. Trends Cogn Sci 7:111–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pylyshyn ZW (2003b) Return of the mental image: are there really pictures in the brain? Trends Cogn Sci 7:113–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roberts WA, Feeney MC (2009) The comparative study of mental time travel. Trends Cogn Sci 13:271–277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Scharff N, Coddington JA (1997) A phylogenetic analysis of the orb-weaving spider family Araneidae (Arachnida, Araneae). Zool J Linn Soc 120:355–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shepard RN, Metzler J (1971) Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science 171:701–703PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shettleworth SJ (2010) Cognition, evolution, and behavior, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Tarsitano M, Andrew R (1999) Scanning and route selection in the jumping spider Portia labiata. Anim Behav 58:255–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tarsitano MS, Jackson RR (1997) Araneophagic jumping spiders discriminate between detour routes that do and do not lead to prey. Anim Behav 53:257–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Whitehouse M (2011) Kleptoparasitic spiders of the subfamily Argyrodinae: a special case of behavioural plasticity. In: Herberstein ME (ed) Spider behaviour: flexibility and versatility. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 348–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wynn K (1992) Addition and subtraction by human infants. Nature 358:749–750PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand
  2. 2.International Centre of Insect Physiology and EcologyMbita PointKenya

Personalised recommendations