Animal Cognition

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 107–112 | Cite as

The role of stimulus preexposure in problem solving by Octopus vulgaris

  • Graziano Fiorito
  • G. B. Biederman
  • Valerie A. Davey
  • Francesca Gherardi
Original article

Abstract

Octopus vulgaris is able to open transparent glass jars closed with plastic plugs and containing live crabs. The decrease in performance times for removing the plug and seizing the prey with increasing experience of the task has been taken to indicate learning. However, octopuses’ attack behaviors are typically slow and variable in novel environmental situations. In this study the role of preexposure to selected features of the problem-solving context was investigated. Although octopuses failed to benefit from greater familiarity with the training context or with selected elements of the task of solving the jar problem, the methodological strategies used are instructive in potentially clarifying the role of complex problem-solving behaviors in this species including stimulus preexposure and social learning.

Key words Stimulus preexposure Problem solving Observational learning Octopus vulgaris 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

An Octopus vulgaris opening a jar (MPEG-Movie 11.60 MB)

References

  1. Agnisola C, Castaldo P, Fiorito G (1996) Octopus vulgaris (Mollusca, Cephalopoda) as a model in behavioral pharmacology: a test of handling effects. Physiol Behav 59:729–733PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldenderfer MS, Blashfield RK (1984) Cluster analysis. Sage, Beverley HillsGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen A, Michels J, Young JZ (1986) Possible interactions between visual and tactile memories in Octopus. Mar Behav Physiol 12:81–97Google Scholar
  4. Angermeier WF, Dassler K (1992) Inhibitory learning and memory in the lesser octopus (Eledone cirrhosa) Bull Psychonom Soc 30:309–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biederman GB, Davey VA (1993) Social learning in invertebrates. Sci 259:1627–1628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boletsky SV, Hanlon RT (1983) A review of the laboratory maintenance, rearing and culture of cephalopod mollusks. Mem Natl Mus Victoria 44:147–187Google Scholar
  7. Boyle PR (1986) Neural control of cephalopod behavior. In: Willows AOD (ed) The Mollusca, vol 9. Neurobiology and behavior, part 2. Academic Press, Orlando, pp 1–100Google Scholar
  8. Fiorito G, Scotto P (1992) Observational learning in Octopus vulgaris. Science 256:545–547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fiorito G, Planta C von, Scotto P (1990) Problem solving ability of Octopus vulgaris Lamarck (Mollusca, Cephalopoda) Behav Neurol Biol 53: 217–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Forsythe JW, Hanlon RT (1994) A comparison of foraging tactics used by Sepioteutis sepioidea and Octopus cyanea on tropical coral reefs. Paper presented at conference “The behavior and natural history of cephalopods”, CIAC, Vico Equense, JuneGoogle Scholar
  11. Forsythe JW, Hanlon RT (1997) Foraging and associated behavior by Octopus cyanea Gray, 1849 on a coral atoll, French Polynesia. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 209:15–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lubow RE (1973) Latent inhibition. Psychol Bull 79:398–407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lubow RE, Rifkin B, Alek M (1976) The context effect: the relationship between stimulus pre-exposure and environmental pre-exposure determines subsequent learning. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Proc 2:38–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Maldonado H (1963) The positive learning process in Octopus vulgaris. Z Vergl Physiol 47:191–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Maldonado H (1964) The control of attack by Octopus. Z Vergl Physiol 47:656–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mather JA (1980) Some aspects of food intake in Octopus jubini Robson. Veliger 22:286–290Google Scholar
  17. Moriyama T, Gunji YP (1997) Autonomous learning in maze solution by Octopus. Ethology 103:499–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pack JE (1979) Octopus: apparatus and procedures for laboratory housing and for research on visual wavelength discrimination. MA thesis, Austin State University, Austin, TexasGoogle Scholar
  19. Papini MR, Bitterman ME (1991) Appetitive conditioning in Octopus cyanea. J Comp Psychol 105:107–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sanders GD (1975) The Cephalopods. In: Corning WC, Dyal JD, Willows AOD (eds) Invertebrate learning, vol 3. Cephalopods and echinoderms. Plenum, New York, pp 1–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Siegel S, Castellan NJ (1988) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Winer BJ (1971) Statistical principles in experimental design, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Wishart D (1987) Clustan, cluster analysis software (computer program). Clustan, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  24. Yarnall JL (1969) Aspects of the behavior of Octopus cyanea Gray. Anim Behav 17:747–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Young JZ (1956) Visual responses by Octopus to crabs and other figures before and after training. J Exp Biol 33:709–729Google Scholar
  26. Young JZ (1971) The anatomy of the nervous system of Octopus vulgaris. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Young JZ (1983) The distributed tactile memory system of Octopus. Proc R Soc Lond 218:135–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Young JZ (1991) Computation in the learning system of cephalopods. Biol Bull 180:200–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Graziano Fiorito
    • 1
  • G. B. Biederman
    • 2
  • Valerie A. Davey
    • 2
  • Francesca Gherardi
    • 3
  1. 1.Laboratorio di Neurobiologia, Stazione Zoologica “A. Dohrn” di NapoliVilla CommunaleNapoliItaly
  2. 2.Division of Life SciencesUniversity of Toronto at ScarboroughTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Biologia Animale e Genetica “Leo Pardi”Università di FirenzeFirenzeItaly

Personalised recommendations