Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Small and large number discrimination in guppies

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Animal Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Non-verbal numerical behavior in human infants, human adults, and non-human primates appears to be rooted in two distinct mechanisms: a precise system for tracking and comparing small numbers of items simultaneously (up to 3 or 4 items) and an approximate system for estimating numerical magnitude of a group of objects. The most striking evidence that these two mechanisms are distinct comes from the apparent inability of young human infants and non-human primates to compare quantites across the small (<3 or 4)/large (>4) number boundary. We ask whether this distinction is present in lower animal species more distantly related to humans, guppies (Poecilia reticulata). We found that, like human infants and non-human primates, fish succeed at comparisons between large numbers only (5 vs. 10), succeed at comparisons between small numbers only (3 vs. 4), but systematically fail at comparisons that closely span the small/large boundary (3 vs. 5). Furthermore, increasing the distance between the small and large number resulted in successful discriminations (3 vs. 6, 3 vs. 7, and 3 vs. 9). This pattern of successes and failures is similar to those observed in human infants and non-human primates to suggest that the two systems are present and functionally distinct across a wide variety of animal species.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Data from the two samples of the 3 versus 5 comparison were pooled and entered into the ANOVA, given the two groups showed no significant differences, data had a normal distribution (Kolmogorov–Smirnov one sample t test, P > 0.1), and no difference between groups was found in the variance (Leven test, P > 0.05).

  2. We also ran an ANOVA on the weighted means to account for the difference in the number of subjects in each group (n = 36 for 3 vs. 5, n = 18 for 3 vs. 4, n = 18 for 5 vs. 10). The analysis of the weighted means produced parallel results to those obtained on the raw scores. Specifically, when we compared 3 versus 4 and 3 versus 5, we observed a significant main effect of Number (F(1,52) = 4.703, P = 0.036) and a significant interaction between Number and Contrast (F(1,52) = 5.504, P = 0.021). The main effect of Contrast was not significant (F(1,52) = 1.181, P = 0.278). When comparing 3 versus 5 and 5 versus 10, we found a significant main effect of Number (F(1,52) = 5.684, P = 0.020) and a significant interaction between Number and Contrast (F(1,52) = 4.902, P = 0.036). Again, the main effect of Contrast alone was not significant (F(1,52) = 0.011, P = 0.920).

References

  • Agrillo C, Dadda M (2007) Discrimination of the larger shoal in the poeciliid fish Girardinus falcatus. Ethol Ecol Evol 19:145–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrillo C, Dadda M, Bisazza A (2007) Quantity discrimination in female mosquitofish. Anim Cogn 10:63–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Agrillo C, Dadda M, Serena G, Bisazza A (2008) Do fish count? Spontaneous discrimination of quantity in female mosquitofish. Anim Cogn 11(3):495–503

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Agrillo C, Piffer L, Bisazza A (2010) Large number discrimination by fish. PLoS ONE 5(12):e15232. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015232

  • Agrillo C, Piffer L, Bisazza A (2011) Number versus continuous quantity in numerosity judgments by fish. Cognition 119:281–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Al Aïn S, Giret N, Grand M, Kreutzer M, Bovet D (2009) The discrimination of discrete and continuous amounts in African grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus). Anim Cogn 12:145–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansari D, Lyons I, van Eimeren L, Xu F (2007) Linking visual attention and number processing in the brain: the role of the temporo-parietal junction in small and large non-symbolic number comparison. J Cogn Neurosci 19:1845–1853

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barth H (2008) Judgments of discrete and continuous quantity: an illusory Stroop effect. Cognition 109(2):251–266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bisazza A, Piffer L, Serena G, Agrillo C (2010) Ontogeny of numerical abilities in fish. PLoS ONE 5(11):e15516. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015516

  • Bradner J, McRobert SP (2001) The effect of shoal size on patterns of body colour segregation in mollies. J Fish Biol 59(4):960–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brannon EM, Terrace HS (2000) Representation of the numerosities 1–9 by rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). J Exp Psych Anim Behav Proc 26(1):31–49

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Buckingham JN, Wong BBM, Rosenthal GG (2007) Shoaling decisions in female swordtails: how do fish gauge group size? Behaviour 144:1333–1346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantlon JF, Brannon EM (2006) Shared system for ordering small and large numbers in monkeys and humans. Psychol Sci 17(5):401–406

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carey S (2009) The origin of concepts. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cordes S, Brannon EM (2008) Quantitative competencies in infancy. Dev Sci 11:803–808

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cordes S, Brannon EM (2009) Crossing the divide: infants discriminate small from large numerosities. Dev Psych 45:1583–1594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordes S, Gelman R, Gallistel CR, Whalen J (2001) Variability signatures distinguish verbal from nonverbal counting for both large and small numbers. Psych Bull Rev 8:698–707

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dadda M, Piffer L, Agrillo C, Bisazza A (2009) Spontaneous number representation in mosquitofish. Cognition 112:343–348

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dehaene S (1997) The number sense. Oxford University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Feigenson L (2007) The equality of quantity. Trends Cogn Sci 11(5):185–187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feigenson L, Carey S (2003) Tracking individuals via object-files: evidence from infants’ manual search. Dev Sci 6:568–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feigenson L, Carey S (2005) On the limits of infants’ quantification of small object arrays. Cognition 97:295–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feigenson L, Carey S, Hauser MD (2002) The representations underlying infants’ choice of more: object files versus analog magnitudes. Psychol Sci 13:150–156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feigenson L, Dehaene S, Spelke ES (2004) Core systems of number. Trends Cogn Sci 8:307–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gallistel CR (1990) Representations in animal cognition: an introduction. Cognition 37:1–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Laplaza LM, Gerlai R (2011a) Can angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare) count? Discrimination between different shoal sizes follows Weber’s law. Anim Cogn 14(1):1–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Laplaza LM, Gerlai R (2011b) Spontaneous discrimination of small quantities: shoaling preferences in angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare). Anim Cogn 14(4):565–574

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser MD, Carey S, Hauser LB (2000) Spontaneous number representation in semi-free-ranging rhesus monkeys. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:829–833

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hennig M (1977) Counting ability in Blennius-pavo Risso (Blenniidae, Perciformes). Zool Anz 199:1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt S, Low J, Burns KC (2008) Adaptive numerical competency in a food-hoarding songbird. Proc R Soc Lond B 275:2373–2379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyde DC, Spelke ES (2009) All numbers are not equal: an electrophysiological investigation of small and large number representations. J Cogn Neurosci 21:1039–1053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hyde DC, Wood JN (2011) Spatial attention determines the nature of non-verbal numerical cognition. J Cogn Neurosci 23:2336–2351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Izard V, Sann C, Spelke ES, Streri A (2009) Newborn infants perceive abstract numbers. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 106:10382–10385

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Treisman A, Gibbs BJ (1992) The reviewing of object files: object-specific integration of information. Cogn Psych 24:175–219

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ledesma JM, McRobert SP (2008) Shoaling in juvenile guppies: the effects of body size and shoal size. Behav Process 77(3):384–388

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meck WH, Church RM (1983) A mode control model of counting and timing processes. J Exp Psych Anim Behav Proc 9:320–334

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moyer RS, Landauer TK (1967) The time required for judgments of numerical inequality. Nature 215:1519–1520

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard VL, Lawrence J, Butlin RK, Krause J (2001) Shoal choice in zebrafish, Danio rerio: the influence of shoal size and activity. Anim Behav 62:1085–1088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholl BJ, Pylyshyn ZW (1999) Tracking multiple items through occlusion: clues to visual objecthood. Cogn Psych 38:259–290

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry. Freeman and Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Trick LM, Pylyshyn ZW (1994) Why are small and large numbers enumerated differently? A limited-capacity preattentive stage in vision. Psych Rev 101:80–102

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Uller C, Jaeger R, Guidry G, Martin C (2003) Salamanders (Plethodon cinereus) go for more: rudiments of number in an amphibian. Anim Cogn 6:105–112

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vallortigara G, Regolin L, Chiandetti C, Rugani R (2010) Rudiments of mind: insights through the chick model on number and space cognition in animals. Comp Cogn Behav Rev 5:78–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh V (2003) A theory of magnitude: common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends Cogn Sci 7:483–488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ward C, Smuts BB (2007) Quantity-based judgments in the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris). Anim Cogn 10:71–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Xu F (2003) Numerosity discrimination in infants: evidence for two systems of representations. Cognition 89:B15–B25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Xu F, Spelke ES (2000) Large number discrimination in 6-month-old infants. Cognition 74:B1–B11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Sonia Betti for their help conducting the experiments, and the four anonymous referees for useful comments. This study was supported by research grant from University of Padova to Christian Agrillo (‘Progetto Giovani’ 2010). The reported experiments comply with all the laws of the country (Italy) in which they were performed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, Via Venezia 8, 35131, Padova, Italy

    Laura Piffer & Christian Agrillo

  2. Laboratory for Developmental Studies, Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Daniel C. Hyde

Authors
  1. Laura Piffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian Agrillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel C. Hyde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Piffer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Piffer, L., Agrillo, C. & Hyde, D.C. Small and large number discrimination in guppies. Anim Cogn 15, 215–221 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-011-0447-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-011-0447-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation