Advertisement

Behavior Research Methods

, Volume 50, Issue 4, pp 1673–1685 | Cite as

Methods for the effective study of collective behavior in a radial arm maze

  • Johann Delcourt
  • Noam Y. Miller
  • Iain D. Couzin
  • Simon Garnier
Article

Abstract

Collective behaviors are observed throughout nature, from bacterial colonies to human societies. Important theoretical breakthroughs have recently been made in understanding why animals produce group behaviors and how they coordinate their activities, build collective structures, and make decisions. However, standardized experimental methods to test these findings have been lacking. Notably, easily and unambiguously determining the membership of a group and the responses of an individual within that group is still a challenge. The radial arm maze is presented here as a new standardized method to investigate collective exploration and decision-making in animal groups. This paradigm gives individuals within animal groups the opportunity to make choices among a set of discrete alternatives, and these choices can easily be tracked over long periods of time. We demonstrate the usefulness of this paradigm by performing a set of refuge-site selection experiments with groups of fish. Using an open-source, robust custom image-processing algorithm, we automatically counted the number of animals in each arm of the maze to identify the majority choice. We also propose a new index to quantify the degree of group cohesion in this context. The radial arm maze paradigm provides an easy way to categorize and quantify the choices made by animals. It makes it possible to readily apply the traditional uses of the radial arm maze with single animals to the study of animal groups. Moreover, it opens up the possibility of studying questions specifically related to collective behaviors.

Keywords

Collective behavior Collective decision-making Group cohesion Fission–fusion societies 

Notes

Author note

J.D. is a postdoctoral researcher at the Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique (FRS)–FNRS (Belgium). This work was supported by the FRS–FNRS under FRFC Grants 2.4617.08F, 2.4507.08.F, and T.1064.14 (PDR FNRS project). I.D.C. acknowledges support from the NSF (Grants PHY-0848755, IOS-1355061, and EAGER-IOS-1251585), ONR (Grants N00014-09-1-1074, N00014-14-1-0635), ARO (Grants W911NG-11-1-0385, W911NF-14-1-0431), and the Human Frontier Science Program (RGP0065/2012). We thank Adrian de Froment for useful discussions and for helping with part of the experiments. We also thank Pascal Poncin and Jean-Louis Deneubourg for their support and advice in the PDR FNRS Project. We thank C. Orban for her advice on the writing.

Supplementary material

13428_2018_1024_MOESM1_ESM.docx (71 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 70 kb)
13428_2018_1024_MOESM2_ESM.docx (686 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 685 kb)
13428_2018_1024_MOESM3_ESM.docx (231 kb)
Fig. S1. Illustration of transitions of majority. (a) Transition of the majority between arm 1 and arm 3. A majority is observed until time t1 in arm 1, a new majority group is observed in arm 3 from time t3. Between the times t1 and t3, no majority is observed in any arm (the central zone is not considered). The period of transition between two successive majority periods (and its duration) is defined as being between t1 and t3. (b) Theoretical case where, after a majority period (here in arm 1 in time t1), individuals move into different arms without achieving a new majority state (at time t2 in this example). A new majority is achieved at time t3 after reunification of two small groups coming from arms 3 and 4. Note, in this example, that the new majority does not involve all the individuals of the previous majority, one individual remaining in arm 5. “M” indicates the “majority arm”. See Fig.1 for definition of arm number and majority arm. (DOCX 230 kb)
13428_2018_1024_MOESM4_ESM.docx (99 kb)
Fig. S2. Theoretical example illustrating the concept of different types of majority transition. Upper panel: a timeline with periods of majority, M (indicated by color blocks; each color corresponds to a specific arm), alternating with periods of no majority, NM (uncolored blocks). The state sequence of observed majority is the sequence of arm identities (indicated by upper-case letters) where a majority is successively observed. The duration of the majority state is not taken into account. This sequence constitutes the first order transitions of majority. Second order transitions of majority indicate the sequence of transitions between a majority and the second-next majority achieved (in time). Majority transition without repetition is defined to filter cases where transition has aborted, and is based on only the first order transition: the first order transitions between two successive identical arms are ignored. For higher order transition, repetitive identical majority are considered as only one element in the state sequence. (DOCX 99 kb)
13428_2018_1024_MOESM5_ESM.docx (234 kb)
Fig. S3. Several theoretical examples of stereotypic motion patterns (algorithmic behaviors) with corresponding majority transition diagrams for first and second order transitions. The numbers are the expected percentage of choice of the majority for each majority transition (and underlined also by the thickness of the transition arrows). (a) case where the majority of the group always chooses the next arm to the left; (b) case where the majority oscillates between only two arms; (c) case of a “star” pattern where the majority moves from one particular arm to any other arm, and returns immediately afterwards to the initial majority arm; (d) case in which the majority moves only into the adjacent left or right arm. (DOCX 234 kb)
13428_2018_1024_MOESM6_ESM.docx (263 kb)
Fig. S4. Distribution of the number of scorings performed by human counters on each of the 180 test images. The dotted line is the median of the distribution. (DOCX 263 kb)
13428_2018_1024_MOESM7_ESM.docx (249 kb)
Fig. S5. Example of a sequence of 30 minutes, illustrating the relationship between maximal group size observed in the maze arms (the central zone is not included) and periods with and without majority. The group size was ten fish. Each vertical colored bar shows a period during which there was a majority in a specific arm; the color indicates which arm. Between each period of majority is a period of transition during which there was no majority in any arm (n < 6; uncolored gaps). The dotted line is the minimum group size required to obtain a majority in an arm (n ≥ 6), independent of the central zone. (DOCX 248 kb)

References

  1. Al-Imari, L., & Gerlai, R. (2008). Sight of conspecifics as reward in associative learning in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Behavioural Brain Research, 189, 216–219.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Berdahl, A., Torney, C. J., Ioannou, C. C., Faria, J., & Couzin, I. D. (2013). Emergent sensing of complex environments by mobile animal groups, Science, 339, 574–576.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bode, N. W. F., & Delcourt, J. (2013). Individual-to-resource landscape interaction strength can explain different collective feeding behaviours. PLoS ONE, 8, e75879. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075879 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Branson, K., Robie, A. A., Bender, J., Perona, P., & Dickinson, M. H. (2009). High-throughput ethomics in large groups of Drosophila. Nature Methods, 6, 451– 457. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1328 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, M. F., & Giumetti, G. W. (2006). Spatial pattern learning in the radial arm maze. Learning & Behavior, 34, 102–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, M. F., Prince, T.-M. N., & Doyle, K. E. (2009). Social effects on spatial choice in the radial arm maze. Learning & Behavior, 37, 269–280. doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/LB.37.3.269 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cole, M. R., & Chappell-Stephenson, R. (2003). Exploring the limits of spatial memory in rats, using very large mazes. Learning & Behavior, 31, 349–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colwill, R. M., Raymond, M. P., Ferreira, L., & Escudero, H. (2005). Visual discrimination learning in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Behavioural Processes, 70, 19–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Correll, N., Sempo, G., Lopez de Meneses, Y., Halloy, J., Deneubourg J.-L., & Martiloni, A. (2006, October). SwisTrack: A tracking tool for multi-unit robotic and biological systems. Paper presented at the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Beijing, China.Google Scholar
  10. Couzin, I. D., Ioannou, C. C., Demirel, G., Gross, T., Torney, C. J., Hartnett, A., ... Leonard, N. E. (2011). Uninformed individuals promote democratic consensus in animal groups. Science, 334, 1578–1580.Google Scholar
  11. Couzin, I. D., Krause, J., Franks N. R., & Levin, S. A. (2005). Effective leadership and decision-making in animal groups on the move. Nature, 433, 513–516.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Creson, T. K., Woodruff, M. L., Ferslew, K. E., Rasch, E. M., & Monaco, P. J. (2003). Dose-response effects of chronic lithium regimens on spatial memory in the black molly fish. Pharmacology, Biochemistry, and Behavior, 75, 35–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Crusio, W. E., & Schwegler, H. (2005). Learning spatial orientation tasks in the radial-maze and structural variation in the hippocampus in inbred mice. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 1(3), 1–11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-1-3 Google Scholar
  14. Delcourt, J., Bode, N. W. F., & Denoël, M. (2016). Collective vortex behaviors: Diversity, proximate, and ultimate causes of circular animal group movements. Quarterly Review of Biology, 91, 1–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Delcourt, J., Denoël, M., Ylieff, M., & Poncin, P. (2013). Video multitracking of fish behaviour: A synthesis and future perspectives. Fish and Fisheries, 14, 186–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Delcourt, J., & Poncin, P. (2012). Shoals and schools: back to the heuristic definitions and quantitative references. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 22, 595–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Delcourt, J., Ylieff, M., Bolliet, V., Poncin, P., & Bardonnet, A. (2011). Video tracking in the extreme: A new possibility for tracking nocturnal underwater transparent animals with fluorescent elastomer tags. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 590–600.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Epskamp, S., Cramer, A. O. J., Waldorp, L. J., Schmittmann, V. D., & Borsboom, D. (2012). qgraph: Network visualizations of relationships in psychometric data. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hankin, R. K. S. (2006). Additive integer partitions in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 16, Code Snippet 1.Google Scholar
  20. Hankin, R. K. S. (2007). Set partitions in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 23, Code Snippet 2.Google Scholar
  21. Hodges, H. (1996). Maze procedures: The radial-arm and water maze compared. Cognitive Brain Research, 3, 167–181.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hughes, R. N., & Blight, C. M. (1999). Algorithmic behaviour and spatial memory are used by two intertidal fish species to solve the radial maze. Animal Behaviour, 58, 601–613.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hughes, R. N., & Blight, C. M. (2000). Two intertidal fish species use visual association learning to track the status of food patches in a radial maze. Animal Behaviour, 59, 613–621.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Katz, Y., Ioannou, C. C., Tunstrøm, K., Huepe, C., & Couzin, I. D. (2011). Inferring the structure and dynamics of interactions in schooling fish. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 18720–18725.Google Scholar
  25. Leblond, C., & Reebs, S. G. (2006). Individual leadership and boldness in shoals of golden shiners (Notemigonus crysoleucas). Behaviour, 143, 1263–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leonard, N. E., Shen, T., Nabet, B., Scardovi, L., Couzin, I. D., & Levin SA. (2012). Decision versus compromise for animal groups in motion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lipp, H. P., Pleskacheva, M. G., Gossweiler, H., Ricceri, L., Smirnova, A. A., Garin, N. N., ... Dell’Omo G. (2001). A large outdoor radial maze for comparative studies in birds and mammals. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 25, 83–99.Google Scholar
  28. Lopez, J. C., Bingman, V. P., Rodriguez, F., Gomez, Y., & Salas, C. (2000). Dissociation of place and cue learning by telencephalic ablation in the goldfish. Behavioral Neuroscience, 114, 687–699.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Lopez, U., Gautrais, J., Couzin, I. D., & Theraulaz, G. (2012). From behavioral analyses to models of collective motion in fish schools. Interface Focus, 2, 693–707.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Macpherson, K., & Roberts, W. A. (2010). Spatial memory in dogs (Canis familiaris) on a radial maze. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 124, 47–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller, N., Garnier, S., Hartnett, A. T., & Couzin, I. D. (2013). Both information and social cohesion determine collective decisions in animal groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 5263–5268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miller, N., & Gerlai, R. (2011). Redefining membership in animal groups. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 964–970. doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0090-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Miller, N. Y., & Gerlai, R. (2008). Oscillations in shoal cohesion in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Behavioural Brain Research, 193, 148–151.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Mogdans, J., & Bleckmann, H. (2012). Coping with flow: behavior, neurophysiology and modeling of the fish lateral line system. Biological Cybernetics, 106,627–642.Google Scholar
  35. Mueller-Paul, J., Wilkinson, A., Hall, G., & Huber, L. (2012). Radial-arm-maze behavior of the red-footed tortoise (Geochelone carbonaria). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 126, 305–317.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Olton, D. S., Collison, C., & Werz, M. A. (1977). Spatial memory and radial arm maze performance of rats. Learning and Motivation, 8, 289–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Olton, D. S., & Samuelson, R. J. (1976). Remembrance of places past: Spatial memory in rats. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 2, 97–116.Google Scholar
  38. Partridge, B. L. (1982). The Structure and Function of Fish Schools. Scientific American, 246, 114–123.Google Scholar
  39. Partridge, B. L., & Pitcher, T. J. (1980). The sensory basis of fish schools: Relative roles of lateral line and vision. Journal of comparative physiology, 135, 315–325.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00657647
  40. Pérez-Escudero, A., Vicente-Page, J., Hinz, R. C., Arganda, S., & de Polavieja, G. G. (2014). IdTracker: Tracking individuals in a group by automatic identification of unmarked animals. Nature Methods 11, 743–748.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Pitcher, T. J. (1983). Heuristic definitions of fish shoaling behavior. Animal Behaviour, 31, 611–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pleskacheva, M. G. (2009). Behavior and spatial learning in radial mazes in birds. Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology, 39, 725–739.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Qian, Z.-M., Cheng, X. E., & Chen, Y. Q. (2014). Automatically detect and track multiple fish swimming in shallow water with frequent occlusion. PLoS ONE, 9, e106506. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106506 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Quera, V., Beltran, F. S., & Dolado, R. (2011). Determining shoal membership: A comparison between momentary and trajectory-based methods. Behavioural Brain Research, 225, 363–366.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Quera, V., Beltran, F. S., Givoni, I. E., & Dolado, R. (2013). Determining shoal membership using affinity propagation. Behavioural Brain Research, 241, 38–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Reebs, S. G. (2000). Can a minority of informed leaders determine the foraging movements of a fish shoal? Animal Behaviour, 59, 403–409.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Reebs, S. G. (2001). Influence of body size on leadership in shoals of golden shiners, Notemigonus crysoleucas. Behaviour, 138, 797–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Roitblat, H., Tham, W., & Golub, L. (1982). Performance of Betta splendens in a radial arm maze. Animal Learning & Behavior, 10, 108–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sison, M., & Gerlai, R. (2010). Associative learning in zebrafish (Danio rerio) in the plus maze. Behavioural Brain Research, 207, 99–104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Sorensen, P. W., & Wisenden, B. D. (2014). Fish Pheromones and Related Cues. Wiley & Sons, Inc. 296 p.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118794739
  51. Sumpter, D. J. T. (2010). Collective animal behavior. Princeton University Press. 302 p.  https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400837106
  52. Tolman, E. C., Ritchie, B. F., & Kalish, D. (1946). Studies in spatial learning: I. Orientation and the short-cut. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36, 13–24. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0053944 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Tunstrøm, K., Katz, Y., Ioannou, C. C., Huepe, C., Lutz, M. J., & Couzin, I. D. (2013). Collective states, multistability and transitional behavior in schooling fish. PLoS Computational Biology, 9, e1002915.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002915
  54. Turchin, P. (1998). Quantitative analysis of movement: Measuring and modeling population redistribution of plants and animals. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
  55. Vorhees, C. V., & Williams, M. T. (2014). Assessing spatial learning and memory in rodents. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research Journal, 55, 310–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Walsh, T. J., & Chrobak, J. J. (1987). The use of the radial arm maze in neurotoxicology. Physiology and Behavior, 40, 799–803.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Wang, S. H., Cheng, X. E., Qian, Z.-M., Liu, Y., & Chen, Y. Q. (2016). Automated planar tracking the waving bodies of multiple zebrafish swimming in shallow water. PLoS ONE, 11, e0154714.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154714 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Ward, A. J., Sumpter, D. J. T., Couzin, I. D., Hart, P. J. B., & Krause, J. (2008). Quorum decision-making facilitates information transfer in fish shoals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 6948–6953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Washizuka, K., & Taniuchi, T. (2006). Acquisition of a radial maze task by goldfish. Japanese Journal of Animal Psychology, 56, 27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Washizuka, K., & Taniuchi, T. (2007). Proactive interference on the radial arm maze performance of zebrafish. Japanese Journal of Animal Psychology, 57, 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilkie, D. M., & Slobin, P. (1983). Gerbils in space: Performance on the 17-arm radial maze. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 40, 301–312.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Wilkinson, A., Coward, S., & Hall, G. (2009). Visual and response-based navigation in the tortoise (Geochelone carbonaria). Animal Cognition, 12, 779–787.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Yang, Y., Chen, J., Engel, J., Pandya, S., Chen, N., Tucker, C., Coombs, S., Jones, D. L., & Liu, C. (2006). Distant touch hydrodynamic imaging with an artificial lateral line. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103,18891–18895.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johann Delcourt
    • 1
  • Noam Y. Miller
    • 2
  • Iain D. Couzin
    • 3
    • 4
  • Simon Garnier
    • 5
  1. 1.Behavioural Biology UnitUniversity of LiègeLiègeBelgium
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyWilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada
  3. 3.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Collective Behaviour, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology and Department of BiologyUniversity of KonstanzKonstanzGermany
  5. 5.Department of Biological SciencesNew Jersey Institute of TechnologyPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations