Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 277–289 | Cite as

Precise relative-quantity judgement in the striped field mouse Apodemus agrarius Pallas

  • Zhanna ReznikovaEmail author
  • Sofia Panteleeva
  • Nataliya Vorobyeva
Original Paper

Abstract

Applying the classical experimental scheme of training animals with food rewards to discriminate between quantities of visual stimuli, we demonstrated that not only can striped field mice Apodemus agrarius discriminate between clearly distinctive quantities such as 5 and 10, but some of these mice also exhibit high accuracy in discriminating between quantities that differ only by one. The latter include both small (such as 2 versus 3) and relatively large (such as 5 versus 6, and 8 versus 9) quantities of elements. This is the first evidence of precise relative-quantity judgement in wild rodents. We found striking individual variation in cognitive performance among striped field mice, which possibly reflects individual cognitive variation in natural populations. We speculate that high accuracy in differentiating large quantities is based on the adaptive ability of wild rodents to capture subtle changes in their environment. We suggest that the striped field mouse may be a powerful model species to develop advanced cognitive tests for comparative studies of numerical competence in animals and for understanding evolutionary roots of quantity processing.

Keywords

Numerical competence Relative-quantity judgement Training Two-choice discrimination Visual stimuli Rodents Behavioural flexibility Individual cognitive variation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Daniil Ryabko for the helpful discussion and useful comments. We thank Veronika Aculich for the help in conducting experiments. We appreciate the efforts and valuable comments of two anonymous reviewers that helped us to improve the manuscript.

Funding

The study was funded by Russian Fund for Basic Research (No. 17-04-00702) and by The Federal Fundamental Scientific Research Program for 2013–2020 No. VI.51.1.10. (АААА-А16-116121410120-0) (Grant no. 0-109-2018-0074).

Supplementary material

Supplementary Video 1. The choice of visual stimuli during the exam phase, that is, when neither of the boxes contains food. Here, the animal made its choice still being inside the cup (AVI 2083 KB)

Supplementary Video 2. The choice of visual stimuli during the exam phase, that is, when neither of the boxes contains food. Here, the animal made its choice while running around the arena (AVI 2670 KB)

References

  1. Addessi E, Crescimbene L, Visalberghi E (2008) Food and token quantity discrimination in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Anim Cogn 11(2):275–282.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-007-0111-6 Google Scholar
  2. Agrillo C, Beran MJ (2013) Number without language: comparative psychology and the evolution of numerical cognition. Front Psychol 4:295.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00295 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Agrillo C, Bisazza A (2014) Spontaneous versus trained numerical abilities. A comparison between the two main tools to study numerical competence in non-human animals. J Neurosci Meth 234:82–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2014.04.027 Google Scholar
  4. Agrillo C, Dadda M, Serena G, Bisazza A (2009) Use of number by fish. PLoS One 4(3):e4786.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004786 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Agrillo C, Piffer L, Bisazza A, Butterworth B (2012) Evidence for two numerical systems that are similar in humans and guppies. PLoS One 7(2):e31923.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031923 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson US, Stoinski TS, Bloomsmith MA, Maple TL (2007) Relative numerousness judgment and summation in young, middle-aged, and older adult orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus abelii and Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus). J Comp Physiol 121(1):1–11Google Scholar
  7. Benson-Amram S, Gilfillan G, McComb K (2018) Numerical assessment in the wild: insights from social carnivores. Phil Trans R Soc B 373(1740):20160508.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0508 Google Scholar
  8. Beran MJ (2007) Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) enumerate large and small sequentially presented sets of items using analog numerical representations. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Proc 33(1):42–54.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.33.1.42 Google Scholar
  9. Beran MJ, Parrish AE (2016) Going for more: discrete and continuous quantity judgments by nonhuman animals. In: Henik A (ed) Continuous issues in numerical cognition: How many or how.  Academic Press, San Diego, pp 175–192.  https://doi.org/10.1016/C2014-0-00082-2 Google Scholar
  10. Beran MJ, McIntyre JM, Garland A, Evans TA (2013) What counts for ‘counting’? Chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes, respond appropriately to relevant and irrelevant information in a quantity judgment task. Anim Behav 85(5):987–993.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.02.022 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Beran MJ, Perdue BM, Evans TA (2015) Monkey mathematical abilities. In: Kadosh RC, Dowker A (eds) The Oxford handbook of numerical cognition. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 237–257Google Scholar
  12. Beran MJ, Menzel CR, Parrish AE, Perdue BM, Sayers K, Smith JD, Washburn DA (2016) Primate cognition: attention, episodic memory, prospective memory, self-control, and metacognition as examples of cognitive control in nonhuman primates. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci 7(5):294–316.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1397 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Boysen ST, Berntson GG (1989) Numerical competence in a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). J Comp Psychol 103(1):23Google Scholar
  14. Brannon EM, Merritt DJ (2011) Evolutionary foundations of the approximate number system. In: Dehaene S, Brannon E (eds) Space, time and number in the brain: searching for the foundations of mathematical thought. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 207–224.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385948-8.00014-1 Google Scholar
  15. Brannon EM, Roitman JD (2003) Nonverbal representations of time and number in animals and human infants. In: Meck WH (ed) Functional and neural mechanisms of interval timing. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 143–182.  https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203009574.ch6 Google Scholar
  16. Brannon EM, Terrace HS (1998) Ordering of the numerosities 1 to 9 by monkeys. Science 282(5389):746–749.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.282.5389.746 Google Scholar
  17. Brannon EM, Wusthoff CJ, Gallistel CR, Gibbon J (2001) Numerical subtraction in the pigeon: evidence for a linear subjective number scale. Psychol Sci 12(3):238–243.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00342 Google Scholar
  18. Burns RA, Goettl ME, Burt ST (1995) Numerical discrimination with arrhythmic serial presentations. Psychol Rec 45(1):95–104Google Scholar
  19. Call J (2000) Estimating and operating on discrete quantities in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). J Comp Psychol 114(2):136Google Scholar
  20. Cancedda L, Putignano E, Sale A, Viegi A, Berardi N, Maffei L (2004) Acceleration of visual system development by environmental enrichment. J Neurosci 24(20):4840–4848.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0845-04.2004 Google Scholar
  21. Cantlon JF, Brannon EM (2007) Basic math in monkeys and college students. PLoS Biol 5(12):e328.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050328 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Cantlon JF, Platt ML, Brannon EM (2009) Beyond the number domain. Trends Cogn Sci 13(2):83–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.11.007 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Capaldi EJ, Miller DJ (1988) Counting in rats: its functional significance and the independent cognitive processes that constitute it. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Proc 14(1):3–17.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.14.1.3 Google Scholar
  24. Chelkowska H, Walkowa W, Adamcszyk K (1985) Spatial relationship in sympatric population of the rodents: Clethrionomys glareolus, Microtus agrestis and Apodemus agrarius. Acta Ther 30(2):51–78Google Scholar
  25. Cox L, Montrose VT (2016) Quantity discrimination in domestic rats, Rattus norvegicus. Animals 6(8):46.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ani6080046 Google Scholar
  26. Davis HP, Pérusse R (1988) Numerical competence in animals: definitional issues, current evidence, and a new research agenda. Behav Brain Sci 11(4):561–615.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00053437 Google Scholar
  27. Dehaene S (2011) The number sense: how the mind creates mathematics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Dehaene S, Izard V, Spelke E, Pica P (2008) Log or linear? Distinct intuitions of the number scale in Western and Amazonian indigene cultures. Science 320(5880):1217–1220PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Djurdjevic V, Ansuini A, Bertolini D, Macke JH, Zoccolan D (2018) Accuracy of rats in discriminating visual objects is explained by the complexity of their perceptual strategy. Curr Biol 28(7):1005–1015.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.02.037 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Feigenson L, Dehaene S, Spelke E (2004) Core systems of number. Trends Cogn Sci 8(7):307–314.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.05.002 Google Scholar
  31. Ferkin MH, Hobbs NJ (2014) Female meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus, respond differently to the scent marks of multiple male conspecifics. Anim Cogn 17(3):715–722.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-013-0703-2 Google Scholar
  32. Ferkin MH, Pierce AA, Sealand RO (2005) Meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus, can distinguish more over-marks from fewer over-marks. Anim Cogn 8(3):182–189.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-004-0244-9 Google Scholar
  33. Fernandes DM, Church RM (1982) Discrimination of the number of sequential events by rats. Anim Learn Behav 10(2):171–176Google Scholar
  34. Ferrigno S, Hughes KD, Cantlon JF (2016) Precocious quantitative cognition in monkeys. Psychon Bull Rev 23(1):141–147.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0893-5 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Gallistel CR, Gelman R (2000) Nonverbal numerical cognition: from reals to integers. Trends Cogn Sci 4(2):59–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01424-2 Google Scholar
  36. Garland A, Low J, Burns KC (2012) Large quantity discrimination by North Island robins (Petroica longipes). Anim Cogn 15(6):1129–1140.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-012-0537-3 Google Scholar
  37. Giurfa M, Zhang S, Jenett A, Menzel R, Srinivasan MV (2001) The concepts of ‘sameness’ and ‘difference’ in an insect. Nature 410(6831):930.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35073582 Google Scholar
  38. Gross HJ, Pahl M, Si A, Zhu H, Tautz J, Zhang S (2009) Number-based visual generalisation in the honeybee. PLoS One 4(1):e4263.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004263 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Hamilton DA, Brigman JL (2015) Behavioral flexibility in rats and mice: contributions of distinct frontocortical regions. Genes Brain Behav 14(1):4–21.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gbb.12191 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Howard SR, Avarguès-Weber A, Garcia JE, Greentree AD, Dyer AG (2018) Numerical ordering of zero in honey bees. Science 360(6393):1124–1126.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar4975 Google Scholar
  41. Huberman AD, Niell CM (2011) What can mice tell us about how vision works? Trends Neurosci 34(9):464–473.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2011.07.002 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Hunt S, Low J, Burns KC (2008) Adaptive numerical competency in a food-hoarding songbird. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 275(1649):2373–2379.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.0702 Google Scholar
  43. Inman RA, Honey RC, Eccles GL, Pearce JM (2016) Asymmetry in the discrimination of quantity by rats: the role of the inter-trial interval. Learn Behav 44(1):67–77.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-015-0191-0 Google Scholar
  44. Judge PG, Evans TA, Vyas DK (2005) Ordinal representation of numeric quantities by brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Proc 31(1):79–94.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.31.1.79 Google Scholar
  45. Kaufman EL, Lord MW, Reese TW, Volkmann J (1949) The discrimination of visual number. Am J Psychol 62(4):498–525.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1418556 Google Scholar
  46. Kilian A, Yaman S, von Fersen L, Güntürkün O (2003) A bottlenose dolphin discriminates visual stimuli differing in numerosity. Anim Learn Behav 31(2):133–142.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195976 Google Scholar
  47. Krusche P, Uller C, Dicke U (2010) Quantity discrimination in salamanders. J Exp Biol 213(11):1822–1828.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.039297 Google Scholar
  48. Kverková K, Bělíková T, Olkowicz S, Pavelková Z, O’Riain MJ, Šumbera R, Burda H, Bennett NC, Němec P (2018) Sociality does not drive the evolution of large brains in eusocial African mole-rats. Sci Rep 8(1):9203.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-26062-8 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Łopucki R, Mróz I, Berliński Ł, Burzych M (2013) Effects of urbanization on small-mammal communities and the population structure of synurbic species: an example of a medium-sized city. Can J Zool 91(8):554–561.  https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2012-0168 Google Scholar
  50. Mazokhin-Porshnyakov GA, Kartsev VM (2000) Learning in bees and wasps in complicated experimental tasks. In: Cruse H, Dean J, Ritter H (eds) The cognitive development of an autonomous behaving operational intelligence: adaptive behavior and intelligent systems without symbols and logic. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 908–926.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0870-9_56 Google Scholar
  51. Nieder A (2018) Evolution of cognitive and neural solutions enabling numerosity judgements: lessons from primates and corvids. Phil Trans R Soc B 373(1740):20160514.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0514 Google Scholar
  52. Pahl M, Si A, Zhang S (2013) Numerical cognition in bees and other insects. Front Psychol 4:162.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00162 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Panteleeva S, Reznikova Z, Vygonyailova O (2013) Quantity judgments in the context of risk/reward decision making in striped field mice: first ‘count’, then hunt. Front Psychol 4:53.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00053 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Pepperberg IM (2012) Further evidence for addition and numerical competence by a Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus). Anim Cogn 15(4):711–717.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-012-0470-5 Google Scholar
  55. Pica P, Lemer C, Izard V, Dehaene S (2004) Exact and approximate arithmetic in an Amazonian indigene group. Science 306(5695):499–503.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1102085 Google Scholar
  56. Reznikova Z (2007) Animal intelligence: from individual to social cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2009.04.004 Google Scholar
  57. Reznikova Z (2017) Studying animal language without translation: an insight from ants. Springer, Switzerland.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44918-0 Google Scholar
  58. Reznikova Z (2018) Ants. Individual and social cognition. In: Bueno-Guerra N, Amici F (eds) Field and laboratory methods in animal cognition: a comparative guide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 8–30Google Scholar
  59. Reznikova Z, Ryabko B (1994) Experimental study of the ants’ communication system with the application of the Information Theory approach. Mem Zool 48:219–236Google Scholar
  60. Reznikova Z, Ryabko B (2001) A study of ants’ numerical competence. Comput Inf Sci 6(15):111–126Google Scholar
  61. Reznikova Z, Ryabko B (2011) Numerical competence in animals, with an insight from ants. Behaviour 148(4):405–434.  https://doi.org/10.1163/000579511X568562 Google Scholar
  62. Reznikova Z, Levenets J, Panteleeva S, Ryabko B (2017) Studying hunting behaviour in the striped field mouse using data compression. Acta Ethol 20(2):165–173.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10211-017-0260-9 Google Scholar
  63. Rugani R, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2010) Imprinted numbers: newborn chicks’ sensitivity to number vs. continuous extent of objects they have been reared with. Dev Sci 13(5):790–797.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00936.x Google Scholar
  64. Rugani R, Cavazzana A, Vallortigara G, Regolin L (2013) One, two, three, four, or is there something more? Numerical discrimination in day-old domestic chicks. Anim Cogn 16(4):557–564.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-012-0593-8 Google Scholar
  65. Rugani R, Vallortigara G, Priftis K, Regolin L (2015) Number-space mapping in the newborn chick resembles humans’ mental number line. Science 347(6221):534–536.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1379 Google Scholar
  66. Shenger-Krestovnikova NR (1921) On the differentiation of visual stimuli and on the limits of differentiation in the visual analyzer of a dog. Bull Lesgaft Inst Petrograd 3:1–43Google Scholar
  67. Smirnova AA, Lazareva OF, Zorina ZA (2000) Use of number by crows: investigation by matching and oddity learning. J Exp Anal Behav 73(2):163–176.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2000.73-163 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. Smirnova A, Zorina Z, Obozova T, Wasserman E (2015) Crows spontaneously exhibit analogical reasoning. Curr Biol 25(2):256–260.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.11.063 Google Scholar
  69. Szacki J, Liro A (1991) Movements of small mammals in the heterogeneous landscape. Landsc Ecol 5(4):219–224.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00141436 Google Scholar
  70. Taniuchi T, Sugihara J, Wakashima M, Kamijo M (2016) Abstract numerical discrimination learning in rats. Learn Behav 44(2):122–136.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-016-0209-2 Google Scholar
  71. Thomas RK, Fowlkes D, Vickery JD (1980) Conceptual numerousness judgments by squirrel monkeys. Am J Psychol 93:247–257.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1422230 Google Scholar
  72. Thornton A, Lukas D (2012) Individual variation in cognitive performance: developmental and evolutionary perspectives. Phil Trans R Soc B 367(1603):2773–2783.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0214 Google Scholar
  73. Tomonaga M (2008) Relative numerosity discrimination by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): evidence for approximate numerical representations. Anim Cogn 11(1):43–57.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-007-0089-0 Google Scholar
  74. Tomonaga M, Kumazaki K, Camus F, Nicod S, Pereira C, Matsuzawa T (2015) A horse’s eye view: size and shape discrimination compared with other mammals. Biol Lett 11(11):20150701.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2015.0701 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. Vonk J, Beran MJ (2012) Bears ‘count’ too: quantity estimation and comparison in black bears, Ursus americanus. Anim Behav 84(1):231–238.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.05.001 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. Webster SJ, Bachstetter AD, Nelson PT, Schmitt FA, Van Eldik LJ (2014) Using mice to model Alzheimer’s dementia: an overview of the clinical disease and the preclinical behavioral changes in 10 mouse models. Front Genet 5:88.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2014.00088 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Systematics and Ecology of Animals, Siberian Branch RASNovosibirskRussia
  2. 2.Novosibirsk State UniversityNovosibirskRussia
  3. 3.National Research Center Kurchatov InstituteMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations