Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 879–888 | Cite as

More or less: spontaneous quantity discrimination in the domestic cat

  • Oxána BánszegiEmail author
  • Andrea Urrutia
  • Péter Szenczi
  • Robyn Hudson
Original Paper

Abstract

We examined spontaneous quantity discrimination in untrained domestic cats in three food choice experiments. In Experiment 1, we presented the cats with two different quantities of food in eight numerical combinations. Overall, the subjects chose the larger quantity more often than the smaller one, and significantly so when the ratio between the quantities was less than 0.5. In Experiment 2, we presented the cats with two pieces of food in four different size combinations. Again, subjects chose the larger piece above chance, although not in the combination where the largest item was presented. In Experiment 3, a subset of the cats was presented multiple times with two different quantities of food, which were hidden from view. In this case, the cats did not choose the larger quantity more often than the smaller one, suggesting that in the present experiments they mainly used visual cues when comparing quantities. We conclude that domestic cats are capable of spontaneously discriminating quantities when faced with different numbers or sizes of food items, and we suggest why they may not always be motivated to choose the larger quantity. In doing so, we highlight the advantages of testing spontaneous choice behavior, which is more likely to reflect animals’ everyday manner of responding than is the case when training them in order to test their absolute limits of performance which may not always coincide with their daily needs.

Keywords

Cognition Number discrimination Size discrimination Spontaneous responding Ecological relevance Felis silvestris catus 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Financial support was provided by a research grant from the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (DGAPA- IN205513), to O. B. by the Postdoctoral Fellowship Program of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, and to A. U. by a student grant from the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico. We thank Carolina Rojas for excellent technical and bibliographical assistance, and cat owners (Rebeca Cruz, Cecilia Echeverría, Marlene Flores, Valeria Flores, Joel Güemez, Vanessa Hernández, Elisa Jacinto, Santiago Ortega, Sofía Ramírez) for allowing us repeated access to their homes and cats. Special thanks to Irene Urrutia for the design of Figure 1.

Ethics approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Abramson JZ, Hernández-Lloreda V, Call J, Colmenares F (2011) Relative quantity judgments in South American sea lions (Otaria flavescens). Anim Cogn 14:695–706. doi: 10.1007/s10071-011-0404-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 Methods 234:82–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2014.04.027 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Agrillo C, Dadda M, Serena G (2008a) Choice of female groups by male mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki). Ethology 114:479–488. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2008.01493.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Agrillo C, Dadda M, Serena G, Bisazza A (2008b) Do fish count? Spontaneous discrimination of quantity in female mosquitofish. Anim Cogn 11:495–503. doi: 10.1007/s10071-008-0140-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Akenson JJ, Nowak MC, Henjum MG, Witmer GW (2003) Characteristics of mountain lion bed, cache and kill sites in northeastern Oregon. In: Becker S, Bjornlie D, Linzey F, Moody D (eds) Proceedings of the seventh mountain lion workshop. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Wyoming, pp 111–118Google Scholar
  6. Apfelbach R, Wester U (1977) The quantitative effect of visual and tactile stimuli on the prey-catching behaviour of ferrets (Putorius furo L.). Behav Process 2:187–200. doi: 10.1016/0376-6357(77)90020-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Apps PJ (1983) Aspects of the ecology of feral cats on Dassen Island, South Africa. S Afr J Zool 18:393–399. doi: 10.1080/02541858.1983.11447843 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baker JM, Shivik J, Jordan KE (2011) Tracking of food quantity by coyotes (Canis latrans). Behav Process 88:72–75. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2011.08.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baker JM, Morath J, Rodzon KS, Jordan KE (2012) A shared system of representation governing quantity discrimination in canids. Front Psychol 3:387. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00387 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Barnard AM, Hughes KD, Gerhardt RR, DiVincenti L Jr, Bovee JM, Cantlon JF (2013) Inherently analog quantity representations in olive baboons (Papio anubis). Front Psychol 4:253. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00253 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Benson-Amram S, Heinen VK, Dryer SL, Holekamp KE (2011) Numerical assessment and individual call discrimination by wild spotted hyaenas, Crocuta crocuta. Anim Behav 82:743–752. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.07.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bernstein PL (2007) The human-cat relationship. In: Rochlitz I (ed) The welfare of cats. Springer, Netherlands, pp 47–89. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-3227-1_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Biben M (1979) Predation and predatory play behaviour of domestic cats. Anim Behav 27:81–94. doi: 10.1016/0003-3472(79)90129-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Biró Z, Lanszki J, Szemethy L, Heltai M, Randi E (2005) Feeding habits of feral domestic cats (Felis catus), wild cats (Felis silvestris) and their hybrids: trophic niche overlap among cat groups in Hungary. J Zool 266:187–196. doi: 10.1017/S0952836905006771 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bisazza A, Piffer L, Serena G, Agrillo C (2010) Ontogeny of numerical abilities in fish. PLoS One 5:e15516. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015516 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Bonanni R, Natoli E, Cafazzo S, Valsecchi P (2011) Free-ranging dogs assess the quantity of opponents in intergroup conflicts. Anim Cogn 14:103–115. doi: 10.1007/s10071-010-0348-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Bradshaw JWS, Goodwin D, Legrand-Defretin V, Nott HMR (1996) Food selection by the domestic cat, an obligate carnivore. Comp Biochem Phys A 114:205–209. doi: 10.1016/0300-9629(95)02133-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bradshaw JWS, Healey LM, Thorne CJ, Macdonald DW, Arden-Clark C (2000) Differences in food preferences between individuals and populations of domestic cats Felis silvestris catus. Appl Anim Behav Sci 68:257–268. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00102-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Buckingham JN, Wong BBM, Rosenthal GG (2007) Shoaling decisions in female swordtails: how do fish gauge group size? Behaviour 144:1333–1346. doi: 10.1163/156853907782418196 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Carere C, Locurto C (2011) Interaction between animal personality and animal cognition. Curr Zool 57:491–498. doi: 10.1093/czoolo/57.4.491 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Červený J, Okarma H (2002) Caching prey in trees by Eurasian lynx. Acta Theriol 47:505–508. doi: 10.1007/BF03192475 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Childs JE (1986) Size-dependent predation on rats (Rattus norvegicus) by house cats (Felis catus) in an urban setting. J Mammal 67:196–199. doi: 10.2307/1381025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Christian DP (1975) Vulnerability of meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus, to predation by domestic cats. Am Midl Nat 93:498–502. doi: 10.2307/2424189 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dards JL (1983) The behaviour of dockyard cats: interactions of adult males. Appl Anim Ethol 10:133–153. doi: 10.1016/0304-3762(83)90117-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Diggle P, Liang K-Y, Zeger S (1994) Analysis of longitudinal data. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Driscoll CA, Macdonald DW, O’Brien SJ (2009) From wild animals to domestic pets, an evolutionary view of domestication. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:9971–9978. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0901586106 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Feigenson L, Carey S, Hauser MD (2002) The representations underlying infants’ choice of more: object files versus analog magnitudes. Psychol Sci 13:150–156. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00427 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Feigenson L, Dehaene S, Spelke E (2004) Core systems of number. Trends Cogn Sci 8:307–314. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.05.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Fitzgerald BM, Karl BJ (1986) Home range of feral house cats (Felis catus L.) in forest of the Orongorongo Valley, Wellington, New Zealand. N Z J Ecol 9:71–82Google Scholar
  30. Flay C, He X, Wang Q (2009) Influence of male density on the courtship and mating duration of male rice weevils, Sitophilus oryzae. N Z Plant Prot 62:76–79Google Scholar
  31. Gómez-Laplaza LM, Gerlai R (2011a) Can angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare) count? Discrimination between different shoal sizes follows Weber’s law. Anim Cogn 14:1–9. doi: 10.1007/s10071-010-0337-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Gómez-Laplaza LM, Gerlai R (2011b) Spontaneous discrimination of small quantities: shoaling preferences in angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare). Anim Cogn 14:565–574. doi: 10.1007/s10071-011-0392-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Gunn-Moore D, Moffat K, Christie LA, Head E (2007) Cognitive dysfunction and the neurobiology of ageing in cats. J Small Anim Pract 48:546–553. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-5827.2007.00386.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Hager MC, Helfman GS (1991) Safety in numbers: shoal size choice by minnows under predatory threat. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29:271–276. doi: 10.1007/BF00163984 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hanus D, Call J (2007) Discrete quantity judgements in the great apes: the effect of presenting whole sets vs. item-by-item. J Comp Psychol 121:241–249. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.121.3.241 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Hardin JW, Hilbe JM (2012) Generalized estimating equations, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Hauser MD, Spelke E (2004) Evolutionary and developmental foundations of human knowledge. In: Gazzaniga MS (ed) The cognitive neurosciences, vol 3. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 853–864Google Scholar
  38. IBM SPSS Statistics (2011) 20.0 IBM Corp., Armonk, NYGoogle Scholar
  39. Jordan KE, Brannon EM (2006) Weber’s Law influences numerical representations in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). Anim Cogn 9:159–172. doi: 10.1007/s10071-006-0017-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Kilian A, Yaman S, von Fersen L, Güntürkün O (2003) A bottlenose dolphin discriminates visual stimuli differing in numerosity. Anim Learn Behav 31:133–142. doi: 10.3758/BF03195976 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kleiman DG, Eisenberg JF (1973) Comparisons of canid and felid social systems from an evolutionary perspective. Anim Behav 21:637–659. doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(73)80088-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Krause J, Rubenstein D, Brown D (1997) Shoal choice behaviour in fish: the relationship between assessment time and assessment quality. Behaviour 134:1051–1062. doi: 10.1163/156853997X00395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Krause J, Godin JGJ, Rubenstein D (1998) Group choice as a function of group size differences and assessment time in fish: the influence of species vulnerability to predation. Ethology 104:68–74. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.1998.tb00030.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Krusche P, Uller C, Dicke U (2010) Quantity discrimination in salamanders. J Exp Biol 213:1822–1828. doi: 10.1242/jeb.039297 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Laundré JW, Hernández L (2003) Winter hunting habitat of pumas Puma concolor in northwestern Utah and southern Idaho, USA. Wildl Biol 9:123–129Google Scholar
  46. Liberg O (1984) Food habits and prey impact by feral and house-based domestic cats in a rural area in southern Sweden. J Mammal 65:424–432. doi: 10.2307/1381089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lucon-Xiccato T, Petrazzini MEM, Agrillo C, Bisazza A (2015) Guppies discriminate between two quantities of food items but prioritize item size over total amount. Anim Behav 107:183–191. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.06.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mahamane S, Grunig KL, Baker JM, Young JK, Jordan KE (2014) Memory-based quantity discrimination in coyotes (Canis latrans). Anim Behav Cogn 1:341–351. doi: 10.12966/abc.08.09.2014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mayes E-RE, Wilkinson A, Pike TW, Mills DS (2015) Individual differences in visual and olfactory cue preference and use by cats (Felis catus). Appl Anim Behav Sci 173:52–59. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2015.01.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McComb K, Packer C, Pusey A (1994) Roaring and numerical assessment in contests between groups of female lions, Panthera leo. Anim Behav 47:379–387. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1994.1052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Menzel EW Jr (1960) Selection of food by size in the chimpanzee, and comparison with human judgments. Science 131:1527–1528. doi: 10.1126/science.131.3412.1527 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 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. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00053 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Parrish AE, Beran MJ (2014) When less is more: like humans, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) misperceive food amounts based on plate size. Anim Cogn 17:427–434. doi: 10.1007/s10071-013-0674-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Pearre S, Maass R (1998) Trends in the prey size-based trophic niches of feral and House Cats Felis catus L. Mammal Rev 28:125–139. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2907.1998.00030.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Petrazzini MEM (2014) Trained quantity abilities in horses (Equus caballus): a preliminary investigation. Behav Sci 4:213–225. doi: 10.3390/bs4030213 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pisa PE, Agrillo C (2009) Quantity discrimination in felines: a preliminary investigation of the domestic cat (Felis silvestris catus). J Ethol 27:289–293. doi: 10.1007/s10164-008-0121-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Range F, Jenikejew J, Schröder I, Virányi Z (2014) Difference in quantity discrimination in dogs and wolves. Front Psychol 5:1299. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01299 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Say L, Pontier D (2004) Spacing pattern in a social group of stray cats: effects on male reproductive success. Anim Behav 68:175–180. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stancher G, Rugani R, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2015) Numerical discrimination by frogs (Bombina orientalis). Anim Cogn 18:219–229. doi: 10.1007/s10071-014-0791-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. STATISTICA (data analysis software system) (2011) 10.0 StatSoft Inc., Tulsa, OklahomaGoogle Scholar
  61. Stevens JR, Wood JN, Hauser MD (2007) When quantity trumps number: discrimination experiments in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) and common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). Anim Cogn 10:429–437. doi: 10.1007/s10071-007-0081-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. The Humane Society of the United States (2011) U.S. pet ownership statistics. http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pet_overpopulation/facts/pet_ownership_statistics.html
  63. Tobie C, Péron F, Larose C (2015) Assessing food preferences in dogs and cats: a review of the current methods. Animals 5:126–137. doi: 10.3390/ani5010126 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Tomonaga M (2008) Relative numerosity discrimination by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): evidence for approximate numerical representations. Anim Cogn 11:43–57. doi: 10.1007/s10071-007-0089-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Turner DC, Bateson P (2014) The domestic cat: the biology of its behaviour, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  66. Uller C, Lewis J (2009) Horses (Equus caballus) select the greater of two quantities in small numerical contrasts. Anim Cogn 12:733–738. doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0225-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Utrata E, Virányi Z, Range F (2012) Quantity discrimination in wolves (Canis lupus). Front Psychol 3:67–75. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00505 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vitale Shreve KR, Udell MAR (2015) What’s inside your cat’s head? A review of cat (Felis silvestris catus) cognition research past, present and future. Anim Cogn 18:1195–1206. doi: 10.1007/s10071-015-0897-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Vonk J, Beran MJ (2012) Bears ‘count’ too: quantity estimation and comparison in black bears, Ursus americanus. Anim Behav 84:231–238. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.05.001 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. Vonk J, Torgerson-White L, McGuire M, Thueme M, Thomas J, Beran MJ (2014) Quantity estimation and comparison in western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla). Anim Cogn 17:755–765. doi: 10.1007/s10071-013-0707-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Ward C, Smuts BB (2007) Quantity-based judgments in the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris). Anim Cogn 10:71–80. doi: 10.1007/s10071-006-0042-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Wilson ML, Hauser MD, Wrangham RW (2001) Does participation in intergroup conflict depend on numerical assessment, range location, or rank for wild chimpanzees? Anim Behav 61:1203–1216. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2000.1706 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Investigaciones BiomédicasUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoMexico Federal DistrictMexico
  2. 2.Centro Tlaxcala de Biología de la ConductaUniversidad Autónoma de TlaxcalaTlaxcalaMexico

Personalised recommendations