Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Food density and preferred quantity: discrimination of small and large numbers in angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare)

Abstract

Many animal species share the ability to discriminate between sets with different quantity of food items. In fish, this ability has rarely been investigated, although findings have been obtained do indicate a preference, as in other animals, for sets with large over small quantities. The role played by food item size has also been found to be important in the discrimination. However, another potentially important non-numerical variable, food density, has not been investigated. In this study, we examined the influence of density (inter-item distance) in the decision-making process of food discrimination in angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare). In a binary choice task, we kept the number and size of food items constant, but contrasted a set containing food items spaced further apart (sparse set) to another set with food items spaced more closely (dense set). We conducted this analysis with sets in the small (3 vs 3 food items) and in the large number range (5 vs 5 food items) and also varied the specific spatial arrangements of the food items in the sets. Contrary to expectations, angelfish showed a preference for the sparse sets over the dense sets in the five vs five contrasts irrespective of the specific spatial arrangement, but exhibited no preference in case of the three vs three contrasts. Subsequently, we slightly lengthened the inter-item distance in the dense sets, and found preference for the dense over the sparse sets. Last, we further examined the potential effect of spatial configuration of the items in the sets, but found no effect of this latter factor. Overall, these results indicate that higher density of the contrasted food item sets significantly influences choice in angelfish, which prefer denser sets if a clear discriminability of each individual item within the sets is provided.

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

Fig. 1

(Modified from Gómez-Laplaza et al. 2019)

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Agrillo C, Bisazza A (2014) Spontaneous vs. trained numerical abilities. A comparison between the two main tools to study numerical competence in non-human animals. J Neurosci Meth 234:82–91

  2. Agrillo C, Bisazza A (2018) Understanding the origin of number sense: a review of fish studies. Philos Trans R Soc B 373:20160511

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

  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

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

  6. Agrillo C, Parrish AE, Beran MJ (2014) Do primates see the solitaire illusion differently? A comparative assessment of humans (Homo sapiens), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), and capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). J Comp Psychol 128:402–413

  7. Agrillo C, Miletto Petrazzini ME, Bisazza A (2017) Numerical abilities in fish: a methodological review. Behav Process 141:161–171

  8. Allik J, Tuulmets T (1991) Occupancy model of perceived numerosity. Percept Psychophys 49:303–314

  9. Anderson US, Stoinski TS, Bloomsmith MA, Marr MJ, Smith AD, Maple TL (2005) Relative numerousness judgment and summation in young and old Western lowland gorillas. J Comp Psychol 119:285–295

  10. Beran MJ (2006) Quantity perception by adult humans (Homo sapiens), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) as a function of stimulus organization. Int Natl J Comp Psychol 19:386–397

  11. Beran MJ (2007) Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) enumerate sequentially presented sets of items using analog numerical representations. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 33:42–54

  12. Beran MJ, Evans TA, Harris EH (2008) Perception of food amounts by chimpanzees based on the number, size, contour length and visibility of items. Anim Behav 75:1793–1802

  13. Beran MJ, Decker S, Schwartz A, Schultz N (2011) Monkeys (Macaca mulatta and Cebus apella) and human adults and children (Homo sapiens) compare subsets of moving stimuli based on numerosity. Front Psychol 2:61. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00061

  14. Bertamini M, Guest M, Vallortigara G, Rugani R, Regolin L (2018) The effect of clustering on perceived quantity in humans (Homo sapiens) and in chicks (Gallus gallus). J Comp Psychol 132:280–293

  15. Brannon EM, Abbott S, Lutz DJ (2004) Number bias for the discrimination of large visual sets in infancy. Cognition 93:B59–B68

  16. Cantlon JF, Brannon EM (2007) How much does number matter to a monkey (Macaca mulatta)? J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 33:32–41

  17. Caves EM, Sutton TT, Johnsen S (2017) Visual acuity in ray-finned fishes correlates with eye size and habitat. J Exp Biol 220:1586–1596

  18. Clearfield MW, Mix KS (1999) Number versus contour length in infants’ discrimination of small visual sets. Psychol Sci 10:408–411

  19. Clearfield MW, Mix KS (2001) Amount versus number: Infants’ use of area and contour length to discriminate small sets. J Cogn Develop 2:243–260

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

  21. Dakin SC, Tibber MS, Greenwood JA, Kingdom FA, Morgan MJ (2011) A common visual metric for approximate number and density. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:19552–19557

  22. DeWind NK, Adams GK, Platt ML, Brannon EM (2015) Modeling the approximate number system to quantify the contribution of visual stimulus features. Cognition 142:247–265

  23. Durgin FH (1995) Texture density adaptation and the perceived numerosity and distribution of texture. J Exp Psychol Human Percept Perform 21:149–169

  24. Emmerton J (1998) Numerosity differences and effects of stimulus density on pigeons' discrimination performance. Anim Learn Behav 26:243–256

  25. Feigenson L, Carey S, Spelke ES (2002) Infants’ discrimination of number vs. continuous extent. Cogn Psychol 44:33–66

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

  27. Ferrigno S, Jara-Ettinger J, Piantadosi ST, Cantlon JF (2017) Universal and uniquely human factors in spontaneous number perception. Nat Commun 8:13968. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13968

  28. Flombaum JI, Junge JA, Hauser MD (2005) Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) spontaneously compute addition operations over large numbers. Cognition 97:315–325

  29. Frommen JG, Hiermes M, Bakker TCM (2009) Disentangling the effects of group size and density on shoaling decisions of three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:1141–1148

  30. Gazzola A, Vallortigara G, Pellitteri-Rosa D (2018) Continuous and discrete quantity discrimination in tortoises. Biol Lett 14:20180649

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

  32. Gómez-Laplaza LM, Gerlai R (2012) Activity counts: the effect of swimming activity on quantity discrimination in fish. Front Psychol 3:484. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00484

  33. Gómez-Laplaza LM, Gerlai R (2013a) The role of body surface area in quantity discrimination in angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare). PLoS ONE 8(12):e83880. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083880

  34. Gómez-Laplaza LM, Gerlai R (2013b) Quantification abilities in angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare): the influence of continuous variables. Anim Cogn 16:373–383

  35. Gómez-Laplaza LM, Gerlai R (2016) Short-term memory effects on crossing the boundary: Discrimination between large and small quantities in angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare). PLoS ONE 11(9):e0162923. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162923

  36. Gómez-Laplaza LM, Díaz-Sotelo E, Gerlai R (2018) Quantity discrimination in angelfish, Pterophyllum scalare: a novel approach with food as the discriminant. Anim Behav 142:19–30

  37. Gómez-Laplaza LM, Soriano L, Gerlai R (2019) The role of item size on choosing contrasted food quantities in angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare). Sci Rep 9:15305. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-51753-1

  38. Hollingsworth WH, Simmons JP, Coates TR, Cross HA (1991) Perceived numerosity as a function of array number, speed of array development, and density of array items. Bull Psychon Soc 1991:29448–29450

  39. Hurewitz F, Gelman R, Schnitzer B (2006) Sometimes area counts more than number. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:19599–19604

  40. JASP Team (2019) JASP (Version 0.11.1) [Computer software]. https://jasp-stats.org/

  41. Killian A, Yaman S, von Fersen L, Güntürkün O (2003) A bottlenose dolphin discriminates visual stimuli differing in numerosity. Learn Behav 31:133–142

  42. Kramer P, Di Bono MG, Zorzi M (2011) Numerosity estimation in visual stimuli in the absence of luminance-based cues. PLoS ONE 6(2):e17378. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017378

  43. Krusche P, Uller C, Dicke U (2010) Quantity discrimination in salamanders. J Exp Biol 213:1822–1828

  44. Leibovich T, Katzin N, Harel M, Henik A (2017) From “sense of number” to “sense of magnitude”: The role of continuous magnitudes in numerical cognition. Behav Brain Sci 40:1–62

  45. Lucon-Xiccato T, Dadda M (2017) Individual guppies differ in quantity discrimination performance across antipredator and foraging contexts. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 71:13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-016-2231-y

  46. Lucon-Xiccato T, Miletto Petrazzini ME, 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

  47. Lucon-Xiccato T, Gatto E, Bisazza A (2018) Quantity discrimination by treefrogs. Anim Behav 139:61–69

  48. MacDonald SE, Agnes MM (1999) Orangutan (Pongy pygmaeus abelii) spatial memory and behaviour in a foraging task. J Comp Psychol 113:213–217

  49. Miletto Petrazzini ME, Fraccaroli I, Gariboldi F, Agrillo C, Bisazza A, Bertolucci C, Foà A (2017) Quantitative abilities in a reptile (Podarcis sicula). Biol Lett 13:20160899. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2016.0899

  50. Miletto Petrazzini ME, Parrish AE, Beran MJ, Agrillo C (2018) Exploring the solitaire illusion in guppies (Poecilia reticulata). J Comp Psychol 132:48–57

  51. Mitchell KG, Calton JL, Threlkeld RC, Schachtman TR (1996) Attenuation and reacquisition of foraging behaviour in a patchy environment. Behav Process 36:239–252

  52. Mix KS, Huttenlocher J, Levine SC (2002) Multiple cues for quantification in infancy: is number one of them? Psychol Bull 128:278–294

  53. Parrish AE, Agrillo C, Perdue BM, Beran MJ (2016) The elusive illusion: do children (Homo sapiens) and capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) see the Solitaire illusion? J Exp Child Psychol 142:83–95

  54. Parrish AE, James BT, Beran MJ (2017) Exploring whether nonhuman primates show a bias to overestimate dense quantities. J Comp Psychol 131:59–68

  55. Pisa PE, Agrillo C (2009) Quantity discrimination in felines: a preliminary investigation of the domestic cat (Felis silvestris catus). J Ethol 27:289–293

  56. Rugani R, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2008) Discrimination of small numerosities in young chicks. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 34:388–399

  57. Rugani R, Fontanari L, Simoni E, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2009) Arithmetic in new born chicks. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 276:2451–2460

  58. Rugani R, Vallortigara G, Regolin L (2014) From small to large. Numerical discrimination by young domestic chicks. J Comp Psychol 128:163–171

  59. Rumbaugh DM, Savage-Rumbaugh ES, Hegel MT (1987) Summation in the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 13:107–115

  60. Scarf D, Hayne H, Colombo M (2011) Pigeons on par with primates in numerical competence. Science 334:1664

  61. Stancher G, Rugani R, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2015) Numerical discrimination by frogs (Bombina orientalis). Anim Cogn 18:219–229

  62. Starr A, Brannon EM (2015) Evidence against continuous variables driving numerical discrimination in infancy. Front Psychol 6:923. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00923

  63. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton

  64. 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

  65. Tomonaga M (2008) Relative numerosity discrimination by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): evidence for approximate numerical representations. Anim Cogn 11:43–57

  66. Uller C, Urquhart C, Lewis J, Berntsen M (2013) Ten-month-old infants’ reaching choices for “more”: the relationship between inter-stimulus distance and number. Front Psychol 4:84. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00084

  67. Vahl WK, Lok T, van der Meer J, Piersma T, Weissing FJ (2005) Spatial clumping of food and social dominance affect interference competition among ruddy turnstones. Behav Ecol 16:834–844

  68. Vonk J, Beran MJ (2012) Bears ‘count’ too: Quantity estimation and comparison in black bears, Ursus americanus. Anim Behav 84:231–238

  69. Wadhera D, Wilkie LM, Capaldi-Phillips ED (2018) The rewarding effects of number and surface area of food in rats. Learn Behav 46:242–255

  70. West R, Young R (2002) Do domestic dogs show any evidence of being able to count? Anim Cogn 5:183–186

  71. Xiong W, Yi L-C, Tang Z, Zhao X, Fu S-J (2018) Quantity discrimination in fish species: fish use non-numerical continuous quantity traits to select shoals. Anim Cogn 21:813–820

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Laura Romero for providing the basis for Fig. 1, and Álvaro L. Caicoya for his invaluable help with the JASP computer software and obtaining the results of the BF. This research was supported by Grant MINECO-17-PSI2016-78249-P from the Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad (Spain) to LMG-L and NSERC (Canada) Discovery Grant (311637) to RG.

Author information

Correspondence to Luis M. Gómez-Laplaza.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted (Ethics Committee of the University of Oviedo, permit: 13-INV-2010.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gómez-Laplaza, L.M., Gerlai, R. Food density and preferred quantity: discrimination of small and large numbers in angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare). Anim Cogn (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-020-01355-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Quantity discrimination
  • Density assessment
  • Food
  • Fish cognition