Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Experimental Models of the Dyadic Operant Behavior of Rats in Different Social Contexts

  • Published:
Biology Bulletin Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To date, a number of methods for and approaches to the study of animal social behavior are used in ethology and neurophysiology. The present study describes experimental models of the operant behavior of rats in dyads, in which the animals have to compete or cooperate to earn a food or water reward delivered automatically after pressing the image of a conditioned stimulus presented on a touch-sensitive display. Three hardware–software modifications, which enable the presentation of conditioned stimuli and rewards in three social contexts, i.e., individual learning, competition, and cooperation, have been developed and tested using the Rat Touch Screen Chamber experimental complex (Lafayette Instrument, United States). These experimental models and data analysis algorithms make it possible to distinguish between different types of dyadic interactions and to identify certain behavioral patterns such as parasitism and donorship during competition or leadership during cooperation. All these methods are based on implementation of the same instrumental skills acquired by animals during individual learning sessions. Therefore, they can be used in comparative analysis of the effects of zoosocial, physiological, and pharmacological factors on the typological and individual features of animal groups.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

REFERENCES

  1. Al-Maliki, S. and Brain, P.F., Effects of food deprivation on fighting behaviour in standard opponent tests by male and female ‘TO’ strain albino mice, Anim. Behav., 1979, vol. 27, pp. 562–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arrant, A.E., Filiano, A.J., Warmus, B.A., Hall, A.M., and Roberson, E.D., Progranulin haploinsufficiency causes biphasic social dominance abnormalities in the tube test, Genes, Brain, Behav., 2016, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 588–603.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Avital, A., Aga-Mizrachi, S., and Zubedat, S., Evidence for social cooperation in rodents by automated maze, Sci. Rep., 2016, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Blanchard, D.C., Spencer, R.L., Weiss, S.M., Blanchard, R.J., McEwen, B., and Sakai, R.R., Visible burrow system as a model of chronic social stress: behavioral and neuroendocrine correlates, Psychoneuroendocrinology, 1995, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 117–134.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bode, N.W.F., Wood, A.J., and Franks, D.W., Group movement and animal social networks, in Animal Social Networks, Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 73–83.

  6. Brockmann, H.J. and Barnard, C.J., Kleptoparasitism in birds, Anim. Behav., 1979, vol. 27, pp. 487–514.

  7. Broom, M., Johanis, M., and Rychtář, J., The effect of fight cost structure on fighting behaviour, J. Math. Biol., 2015, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 979–996.

  8. Bullinger, A.F., Melis, A.P., and Tomasello, M., Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) instrumentally help but do not communicate in a mutualistic cooperative task, J. Comp. Psychol., 2014, vol. 128, no. 3, pp. 251–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cheney, D.L., Extent and limits of cooperation in animals, in In the Light of Evolution, vol. V: Cooperation and Conflict, National Academies Press (US), 2011, Chapter 15.

  10. Chia, C. and Dubois, F., Impulsiveness does not prevent cooperation from emerging but reduces its occurrence: an experiment with zebra finches, Sci. Rep., 2017, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 8544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Clutton-Brock, T.H., Huchard, Е., Social competition and selection in males and females, Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B, 2013, vol. 368, p. 1631.

  12. Clutton-Brock, T., Reproductive competition and sexual selection, Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B, 2017, vol. 372, p. 1729.

  13. Coelho, J.R., Holliday, C.W., and Hastings, J.M., Intra- and interspecific prey theft in cicada killers (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Sphecius), J. Insect Sci., 2019, vol. 19, no. 1, p. 13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cooper, W. and Perez-Mellado, V., Kleptoparasitism in the Balearic lizard, Podarcis lilfordi, Amphibia–Reptilia, 2003, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 219–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Daura-Jorge, F.G., Cantor, M., Ingram, S.N., Lusseau, D., and Simões-Lopes, P.C., The structure of a bottlenose dolphin society is coupled to a unique foraging cooperation with artisanal fishermen, Biol. Lett., 2012, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 702–705.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Duguid, S., Wyman, E., Bullinger, A.F., Herfurth-Majstorovic, K., and Tomasello, M., Coordination strategies of chimpanzees and human children in a stag hunt game, Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B, 2014, vol. 281, no. 1796, p. 20141973.

  17. de Freslon, I., Peralta, J.M., Strappini, A.C., and Monti, G., Understanding allogrooming through a dynamic social network approach: an example in a group of dairy cows, Front. Vet. Sci., 2020, vol. 7, p. 535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Freymond, S.B., Briefer, E.F., Niederhäusern, R.V., and Bachmann, I., Pattern of social interactions after group integration: a possibility to keep stallions in group, PLoS One, 2013, vol. 8, no. 1. e54688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Funston, P.G., Mills, M.G.L., Biggs, H.S., and Richardson, P.R.K., Hunting by male lions: ecological influences and socioecological implications, Anim. Behav., 1998, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1333–1345.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Garay, J., Cooperation in defence against a predator, J. Theor. Biol., 2009, vol. 257, no. 1, pp. 45–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gavrilov, V.V. and Arutyunova, K.R., Formation of individual experience in the model of cooperative behavior in rats, in Evolyutsionnaya i sravnitel’naya psikhologiya v Rossii: traditsii i perspektivy (Evolutionary and Comparative Psychology in Russia: Traditions and Prospects), 2013, pp. 106–112.

  22. Gavrilov, V.V. and Kosyakov, N.N., Brain activity in cooperating rats, in Neironauka dlya meditsiny i psikhologii. Odinnadtsatyi mezhdunarodnyi mezhdistsiplinarnyi congress (Neuroscience for Medicine and Psychology. Eleventh International Interdisciplinary Congress), 2015, pp. 122–123.

  23. Gazda, S.K., Connor, R.C., Edgar, R.K., and Cox, F., A division of labour with role specialization in group-hunting bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) off Cedar Key, Florida, Proc. Biol. Sci., 2005, vol. 272, no. 1559, pp. 135–140.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Hadjichrysanthou, C., Broom, M., and Rychtar, J., Models of kleptoparasitism on networks: the effect of population structure on food stealing behaviour, J. Math. Biol., 2018, vol. 76, no. 6, pp. 1465–1488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Harten, L., Matalon, Y., Galli, N., Navon, H., Dor, R., and Yovel, Y., Persistent producer-scrounger relationships in bats, Sci. Adv., 2018, vol. 4, no. 2. e1603293.

  26. Heaney, M., Gray, R.D., and Taylor, A.H., Keas perform similarly to chimpanzees and elephants when solving collaborative tasks, PLoS One, 2017, vol. 12, no. 2. e0169799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kanagaretnam, K., Mestelman, S., Nainar, S.M.K., and Shehata, M., The impact of social value orientation and risk attitudes on trust and reciprocity, J. Econ. Psychol., 2009, vol. 30, pp. 368–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kasper, C., Vierbuchen, M., Ernst, U., Fischer, S., Radersma, R., et al., Genetics and developmental biology of cooperation, Mol. Ecol., 2017, vol. 26, no. 17, pp. 4364–4377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lee, W., Yang, E., and Curley, J.P., Foraging dynamics are associated with social status and context in mouse social hierarchies, PeerJ, 2018, vol. 6. e5617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Łopuch, S. and Popik, P., Cooperative behavior of laboratory rats (Rattus norvegicus) in an instrumental task, J. Comp. Psychol., 2011, vol. 125, no. 2, pp. 250–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lührs, M.-L. and Dammhahn, M., An unusual case of cooperative hunting in a solitary carnivore, J. Ethol., 2011, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 379–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Marshall-Pescini, S., Schwarz, J.F.L., Kostelnik, I., Virányi, Z., and Range, F., Importance of a species' socioecology: wolves outperform dogs in a conspecific cooperation task, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 2017, vol. 114, no. 44, pp. 11793–11798.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Massen, J.J.M., Ritter, C., and Bugnyar, T., Tolerance and reward equity predict cooperation in ravens (Corvus corax), Sci. Rep., 2015, vol. 5, p. 15021.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Matiulko, I.S., Murtazina, E.P., and Zhuravlev, B.V., Models and methods to study cooperation and competition in pairs of rats while exhibiting foraging activity in the interactive rat touch screen chamber, Eur. J. Nat. Hist., 2018, no. 3, pp. 3–6.

  35. Matyul’ko, I.S., Murtazina, E.P., and Zhuravlev, B.V., Methods for determining the social ranks of animals in small groups, Ross. Fiziol. Zh. im. I.M. Sechenova, 2020, vol. 106, no. 1, pp. 121–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Melis, A.P., Hare, B., and Tomasello, M., Chimpanzees recruit the best collaborators, Science, 2006, vol. 311, no. 5765, pp. 1297–1300.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Ostojić, L. and Clayton, N.S., Behavioural coordination of dogs in a cooperative problem-solving task with a conspecific and a human partner, Anim. Cognit., 2014, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 445–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Phillips, J.A., Peacock, S.J., Bateman, A., Bartlett, M., Lewis, M.A., and Krkošek, M., An asymmetric producer-scrounger game: body size and the social foraging behavior of coho salmon, Theor. Ecol., 2018, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 417–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Plotnik, J.M., Lair, R., Suphachoksahakun, W., and de Waal, F.B.M., Elephants know when they need a helping trunk in a cooperative task, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 2011, vol. 108, no. 12, pp. 5116–5121.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Robinson, E.J.H. and Barker, J.L., Inter-group cooperation in humans and other animals, Biol. Lett., 2017, vol. 13, no. 3, p. 20160793.

  41. Rutte, C. and Taborsky, M., Generalized reciprocity in rats, PLoS Biol., 2007, vol. 5, no. 7. e196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Schuster, R., Cooperative coordination as a social behavior: experiments with an animal model, Hum. Nat., 2002, no. 13, pp. 47–83.

  43. Scott, J.P., Agonistic behavior of mice and rats: a review, Am. Zool., 1966, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 683–701.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Shabanov, P.D. and Lebedev, A.A., Zoosocial behavior of rats, Obz. Klin. Farmakol. Lekarstv. Ter., 2007, vol. 5, no. 31, pp. 2–77.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Shodipo, M.O., Gomez, R.D.C., Welicky, R.L., and Sikkel, P.C., Apparent kleptoparasitism in fish-parasitic gnathiid isopods, Parasitol. Res., 2019, vol. 118, no. 2, pp. 653–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Smolla, M., Gilman, R.T., Galla, T., and Shultz, S., Competition for resources can explain patterns of social and individual learning in nature, Proc. Biol. Sci., 2015, vol. 282, no. 1815.

  47. Stephens, D.W., McLinn, C.M., and Stevens, J.R., Discounting and reciprocity in an iterated prisoner’s dilemma, Science, 2002, vol. 298, pp. 2216–2218.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Viana, D.S., Gordo, I., Sucena, É., and Moita, M.A.P., Cognitive and motivational requirements for the emergence of cooperation in a rat social game, PLoS One, 2010, vol. 5, no. 1. e8483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Weiss, O., Dorfman, A., Ram, T., Zadicario, P., and Eilam, D., Rats do not eat alone in public: food-deprived rats socialize rather than competing for baits, PLoS One, 2017, vol. 12, no. 3. e0173302.

  50. Wood, R.I., Kim, J.Y., and Li, G.R., Cooperation in rats playing the iterated Prisoner’s dilemma game, Anim. Behav., 2016, vol. 114, pp. 27–35.

  51. Zaichenko, M.I., Merzhanova, G.Kh., and Vanetsian, G.L., Differences in the behavior of impulsive and self-controlling rats when they were examined in tests of an open field and a light-dark chamber, Zh. Vyssh. Nerv. Deyat. im. I.P. Pavlova, 2011, no. 3, pp. 340–350.

  52. Zhuravlev, B.V., Murtazina, E.P., and Gurkovskii, B.V., Temporal patterns of changes in the feeding and drinking behavior of rats during spontaneous learning under the conditions of the selection of trigger signals on the touch screen, Neirokomp. Razrab. Primen., 2015, no. 4, pp. 33–34.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Anokhin Institute of Normal Physiology, 125315, Moscow, Russia

    E. P. Murtazina, I. S. Buyanova (Matiulko) & Yu. A. Ginzburg-Shik

Authors
  1. E. P. Murtazina
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. I. S. Buyanova (Matiulko)
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yu. A. Ginzburg-Shik
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to E. P. Murtazina or I. S. Buyanova (Matiulko).

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statement on the welfare of animals. This study was carried out in accordance with the principles of humanity stated in the European Council Directive (86/609/EEC) and in accordance with the principles of the Basel Declaration and the requirements specified in Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union of September 22, 2010, on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. All experimental procedures were approved by the Bioethical Committee of the Anokhin Research Institute of Normal Physiology.

Additional information

Translated by E. Makeeva

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Murtazina, E.P., Buyanova (Matiulko), I.S. & Ginzburg-Shik, Y.A. Experimental Models of the Dyadic Operant Behavior of Rats in Different Social Contexts. Biol Bull Russ Acad Sci 48, 1623–1630 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1062359021090144

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1062359021090144

Keywords: