Chaotic Dynamics Underlying Action Selection in Mice

Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences volume 4, pages 297–309 (2000)Cite this article

Abstract

In previous papers, we have established, through a functional analysis of the behavioral sequences recorded on laboratory mice over a twelve-hour period, the existence of two independent strategies of action selection. On the one hand, the choice of ultradian alternations of rest and activity bouts makes it possible for every mouse to maximize its net energy gain over a one-day or a one-night interval. On the other hand, the succession of acts performed within an activity bout might serve to precisely fit the metabolic needs of each animal, because the corresponding results present great inter-individual variability, with some mice increasing and others decreasing their net energy gain. To determine what kind of dynamic system could generate these successions of acts within an activity bout, we performed a nonlinear time series analysis of the energy costs related to the acts displayed by the mice during such a period. The results suggest that chaotic dynamics might be involved in action selection in mice. Thus, the variability mentioned above could be a consequence of the sensitive dependence on initial conditions associated with such dynamics, and would allow mice to rapidly adapt their metabolic needs to the ongoing situation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

REFERENCES

  1. Baerends, G. P., Drent, R. H., Glas, P., & Groenewold, H. (1970). An ethological analysis of incubation behaviour in the herring gull. Behavioral Supplement, 17, 135-235.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barrio, R. A., Zhang, L., & Maini, P. K. (1997). Hierarchically coupled ultradian oscillators generating robust circadian rhythms. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 59, 517-532.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Beer, R. D. (1995). Computational and dynamical languages for autonomous agents. In R. Port, & T. J. van Gelder (Eds.), Mind as motion: Dynamics, behavior and cognition (pp. 121-147). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brooks, R. (1991). New approaches to robotics. Science, 253, 1227-1232.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Busemeyer, J. & Townsend, J. T. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100, 432-459.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dawkins, R., & Dawkins, M. (1973). Decisions and the uncertainty of behaviour. Behaviour, 45, 83-103.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Eckmann, J. P., Oliffson-Kamphorst, S., & Ruelle, D. (1987). Recurrence plots of dynamical systems. Europhysics Letters, 4, 973-977.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Freeman, W. J. (1995). Societies of brains. A study in the neuroscience of love and hate. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Guastello, S. J. (1995). Chaos, catastrophe, and human affairs: Applications of nonlinear dynamics to work, organizations, and social evolution. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Guillot, A. (1988). Contribution à l'étude des séquences comportementales de la souris: Approches causale, descriptive et fonctionnelle. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Speciality: Biomathematics, University of Paris 7, France.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Guillot, A. (1991). Le comportement de la souris Mus computatrix. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Speciality: Psychophysiology, University of Paris X, France.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Guillot, A., & Meyer, J. A. (1995). A functional analysis of ultradian activity in laboratory mice. Ethology, Ecology & Evolution, 7, 205-219.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Guillot, A., & Meyer, J. A. (1997). A cost-benefit analysis of behavioural sequence organization in laboratory mice. Ethology, Ecology & Evolution, 9, 119-132.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Guillot, A., & Meyer, J. A. (1998). Synthetic animals in synthetic worlds. In T.L. Kuunii & A. Luciani (Eds.), Cyberworlds (pp. 111-123). Tokyo: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hazout, S., Guillot, A., & Meyer, J. A. (1989). Extraction of melodies in behavioral sequences. Behavioural Processes, 20, 61-74.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kantz, H., & Schreiber, T. (1997). Nonlinear time series analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kaplan, D., & Glass, L. (1995). Understanding nonlinear dynamics. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kelso, J. A. S. (1995). Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kennel, M. B., & Isabelle, S. (1992). Method to distinguish possible chaos from colored noise and to determine embedding parameters. Physical Review A, 46, 3111-3118.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Le Magnen, J. (1985). Hunger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lloyd, D. (1997). Chaos and ultradian rhythms. Biological Rhythm Research, 28, 134-143.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lloyd, A. L., & Lloyd, D. (1995). Chaos: Its significance and detection in biology. Biological Rhythm Research, 26, 233-252.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lorenz, K. (1950). Innate behaviour patterns. Symposium of the Society of Experimental Biology, 4, 211-268.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Maes, P. (1991). A bottom-up mechanism for behavior selection in an artificial creature. In J. A. Meyer, & S. W. Wilson (Eds.), From animals to animats: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior (pp. 238-246). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. McFarland, D. J. (1977). Decision making in animals. Nature, 269, 15-21.

    Google Scholar 

  27. McFarland, D., & Bösser, T. (1993). Intelligent behavior in animals and robots. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Meyer, J. A., & Guillot, A. (1986). The energetic cost of various behaviors in the laboratory mouse. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 83, 533-538.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Meyer, J. A., & Guillot, A. (1990). Rule induction from examples for expert systems in mouse behavior. Behavioural Processes, 22, 197-212.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Meyer, J. A., & Guillot, A. (1994). From SAB90 to SAB94: Four years of animat research. In D. Cliff, P. Husbands, J. A. Meyer, & S. W. Wilson (Eds.), From animals to animats 3: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior (pp. 2-11). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Pirjanian, P. (1997). An overview of system architectures for action selection in mobile robotics. Technical Report, Laboratory of Image Analysis, Aalborg University, Denmark.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Port, R., & van Gelder, T. J. (Eds.). Mind as motion: Dynamics, behavior and cognition. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

  33. Rachlin, H. (1989). Judgment, decision and choice: A cognitive/behavioral synthesis. W. H. Freeman.

  34. Scheier C., & Tschacher, W. (1996). Appropriate algorithms for non-linear time series analysis in psychology. In W. Sulis, & A. Combs (Eds.), Nonlinear dynamics in human behavior (pp. 27-43). Singapore: World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Skarda, C. A., & Freeman, W. J. (1987). How brains make chaos in order to make sense of the world. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 161-195.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Sugihara, G., & May, R. M. (1990). Nonlinear forecasting as a way of distinguishing chaos from measurement error in time series. Nature, 344, 734-741.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Takens, F. (1981). Detecting strange attractors in turbulence. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 898, 336-381.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Theiler, J., Eubank, S., Longtin, A., Galdrikian, B., & Farmer, J. D. (1992). Testing for nonlinearity in time series: The method of surrogate data. Physica D, 58, 77-94.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Tinbergen, N. (1951). The study of instinct. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Toates, F. M. (1986). Motivational systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Tyrrell, T. (1993). Computational mechanisms for action selection. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh, U.K.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Vandenhouten, R., Goebbels, G., Rasche, M., & Tegtmeier, H. (1996). SANTIS-a tool for signal analysis and time series processing [Software]. Aachen, Germany: Biomedical Systems Analysis, Institute of Physiology, RWTH.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. AnimatLab, LIP6, Université Pierre et Marie Curie—CNRS, Paris, France

    Agnès Guillot & Jean-Arcady Meyer

Authors
  1. Agnès Guillot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jean-Arcady Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Guillot, A., Meyer, JA. Chaotic Dynamics Underlying Action Selection in Mice. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychol Life Sci 4, 297–309 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009584106836

Download citation

  • nonlinear dynamics
  • chaos
  • action selection
  • behavioral sequences
  • mouse