insight-related cognition in animals

in what two ways can animal models of impaired cognition be beneficial

• clinical relevance → assessing similarities/differences in brain structure + how they result in certain conditions

• treatment development → animals with same condition can be tested in order to treat resulting behaviours in humans

what is cognitive flexibility

the ability to perform a wide range of behaviours/tasks and select them flexibly according to what different contexts require → the ability to adapt

• allow us to shift focus/attention + update rules/systems of what they are doing quickly, while maintaining old info

which task can be used to test cognitive flexibility + what does impairment suggest

Wisconsin Card Sorting Task → requires understanding of when a rule has changed + reasoning of what behaviour is needed to adapt to new situation

• impairment in task performance may be due to damage to PFC

how did Veit et al. (2014) measure cognitive flexibility in crows + what were the two conditions

performed delayed match-to-sample task (similar to WM one), but a visual or auditory cue was used between after sample was shown + an initial delay → this indicates what the crow must do with the held information. either:

• trial type 1 (delayed non-match-to-sample) → had to pick stimulus that was not present during sample on a high pitch or red circle

• trial type 2 (delayed match-to-sample) → pick stimulus that was present during sample on low pitch or blue circle

inserted single electrode recordings into NCL to track differences in neuronal response rate

what made Veit et al. (2014)’s study of cognitive flexibility more methodologically sound

there was no reward, so no neural interference from reward anticipation

what did Veit et al. (2014) find in terms of differences in firing rate

overall, crows performed very well on the task (+ slightly better at assessing visual cues) → we can conclude this was not a conditioned response due to:

• high firing rate found for non-match rules trial(1) in both auditory + visual cues

• lower firing rate found for match rules trial (2) in both auditory + visual cues

shows not only that they are attending to rules (rather than identifying different types of stimuli), but firing rate at non-match higher due to selecting one you didn’t see = more cognitively demanding

what do Veit et al. (2014)’s results imply about avian cognition

they found response to abstract rules on a single-cell level in the NCL → supports evidence for NCL as a functional analogue to the PFC, and gives evidence for cognitive flexibility in birds

how did Zhang et al. (2005) assess cognitive flexibility in bees

used tunnel method with two possible visual samples that could be correct (separated by 50cm - which one is correct differs depending on trial), then has to go through the correct tunnel to receive reward

• learning test tests ability to follow rules + whether rules can be generalised to other tasks

what did Zhang et al. (2005) find + could these be generalised/how

• results of learning tests showed bees can learn the rule + perform well on trained stimuli → sample 2 = slightly worse than 1, but still better than chance rate

• tested generalisability (means not just conditioning) through transfer tests, which introduced novel patterns + meaning they have to follow specific order of presentation

  • found bees performed above-chance levels, indicating they can generalise to more abstract tasks

what do Zhang et al. (2005)’s results imply about cognitive flexibility in bees

ability to generalise shows bees can engage in cognitive flexibility, as a new rule was applied to novel incoming stimuli

how did Glurfa et al. (2001) assess the learning of abstract concepts in bees in initial portion of the study

performed match-to-task → study created a maze to prompt the learning of new rules using more naturalistic stimuli. goal is to navigate way to the feeder through various chambers

• bee is given an odour when it first enters chamber (lemon or mango) → first presented is what needs to be matched later on to get reward

• at next chamber, odour 1 leads them to reward, while wrong turn leads them to a fan which pushes them out the maze

• chambers can rotate + move into different configurations → means bee learns from olfactory cue rather than directions

how did Glurfa et al. (2001) assess generalisation of learned concepts in bees

after initial training, had to complete a transfer task → replaced odours with different type of stimulus (colours)

• tested ability to generalise rule of first stimulus encountered leads to food reward

what did Glurfa et al. (2001) find regarding learning/generalising + what does this imply

found bees performed above-chance in delayed match-to-sample task + could adequately generalise rule from odour to visual stimulus

• this demonstrates above-chance level cross-modal learning, so can apply concept of ‘sameness’ to different scenarios → evidence for CF

what is object permanence

a type of higher-order (insight-related) cognitive function → understanding of one’s own existence + existence of other objects in space, even if we cannot see them currently

is object permanence present in crows + how would it develop (Hoffman et al., 2011)

yes, consistently → when food reward location has changed without crow directly seeing, crows can still reason + identify where it would be

• research found that crows move through object permanence trials similarly to how young children world

how similar are humans to macaques + what is our common brain area associated with object permanence

we share 93% of our DNA + most of our neuroanatomy → both contain an inferotemporal cortex, which is associated with OP

how did Puneeth et al. (2016) investigate object permanence in macaques

took single-unit recordings of ITC while they completed a match response task → macaques tracked progression of an object moving across a screen, behind a wall, then emerging from the other side. two conditions:

• expected emergence → same item emerges on other side

• unexpected emergence → different item from that which entered emerges

task assesses whether macaques identified difference between conditions → if no object permanence, there will be no difference in neuronal activity

what were Puneeth et al. (2016)’s results + what does this imply

found selective firing for unexpected object emergence + different general neuronal activity between the two conditions (some neurons responded higher to expected, while others responded higher to surprise)

• suggests macaques have object permanence + ITC is associated with its use

what two animals have researchers found have self-recognition abilities

• dolphins have demonstrated in captivity, e.g. with a mirror → will move + observe resulting action, showing understanding of the position of their own bodies/ability to perceive themselves

• magpies/other corvids → when a red sticker is place on a magpie + they stand in front of a mirror, they will instantly direct action towards it due to identifying the difference

what is mental time travel

a form of higher-order (insight-related) cognitive function → the ability to look through time to our past/future, so events not immediately in our space

what is caching + what species has it been observed in

the act of storing food in a safe location to be consumed later rather than immediately → sign of forward-planning

• this has been observed in scrub jays

how did Clayton + Dickinson (1998) study MTT in scrub jays

had jays engage in instinctual caching behaviour in controlled environment:

• they were provided with a grub, which they stash in the exposed side of a tray (which is then covered up) to eat when they want (cach 1)

• they were provided with peanuts 5 days later, which was stashed in the right side of the tray (cach 2)

then observed what tray they went to 124 hours later

what were Clayton + Dickinson (1998)’s findings + what does this suggest

found when scrub jays could access tray, they immediately went to search for the grub. this means they had a sense of:

• where the food was stored → representation of location

• when it was placed there → had sense of time to conceive of when the group would go bad, so needed to eat it sooner

this requires mental time travel via episodic memory in order to complete instinctual eating behaviours, but may not necessarily demonstrate MTT

what are 4 examples of chimpanzees showing theory of mind behaviours in the wild

there is evidence of them displaying ability to understand the thoughts and feelings of others:

• can show patience with individuals willing (but unable) to share food over those unwilling to share

• can discriminate between accidental + intentional interactions → chimp bumping into another is less likely to respond aggressively

• can follow/track the gaze of others

• will use gestural communication when facing one another + orient if facing away → understand they need to be perceived to communicate

how did Krupenye et al. (2016) test TofM in chimpanzees

engaged in false-belief task → showed chimpanzees a visual story in which someone (a chimp) comes into a room + moves an object while second person was not present, and the second person (zookeeper) enters

• chimp indicates via eye-tracking where the second person would think the object is

• eye-tracking on the initial location of object would demonstrate understanding of TofM due to acknowledging the perspective of others

what were Krupenye et al. (2016)’s findings + what does this suggest

found chimp will look to where the second person believes the first to be → they look to the target over the distractor by a significant margin

• overall demonstrates TofM capabilities comparable with human studies → may explain the extent of prosocial behaviour observed in chimps

what are features of tool use + who is it previously believed to have been specific to

the use/development of objects that perform a function → requires understanding of causal relationships

• is thought to be intrinsic to human behaviour due to being observed cross-culturally

• in evolution, came about around the same time that speech emerged → brain areas seemed to have emerged simultaneously + are lateralised to the left hemisphere

• previously seen to be what separates us from the animal kingdom

what 3 species have Beck (1980) + St Amant & Horton (2008) observed tool use in

• primates → used in foraging behaviours in order to receive food, e.g. using sticks to extend reach/dig

• dolphins → use makeshift sponges to protect their noses from being hurt while foraging on the ocean floor. this is learnt + taught intergenerationally

• New Caledonian crows → manufacture hook-tools by stripping layers of a stick in order to dig into branches for food

  • have demonstrated tool preferences → making of an inefficient one will cause them to remake/tweak the design

what is Beck’s framework of tool use in humans + animals

the external employment of an unattached environmental object to alter more efficiently the form, position or condition of another object, organism or user itself when tool is held → user is responsible for the proper + effective orientation of the tool

which animal has been observed to have ‘tool-kits’ + what did they consist of

chimpanzees in Gabon have been observed to make different tools for different tasks necessary to harvest insects from underground:

• ‘pounder’ stick used to break into termite habitat, then an ‘enlarger’ stick to make habitat easier to get into

• will manufacture a brush tool by chewing it to dig + harvest insects

shows intelligent tool use due to employing them at different stages most relevant to their shape in order to achieve desired result → sequential + specific

what is the issue of inferring tool use behaviour from natural observations + how does animal tool use differ from human tool use

though tool use can be trained in a lab, actual occurrences of tool use in nature = very rare → Beck’s framework of tool use constrains instances observed

• most tool use behaviours consist of extending each etc. rather than for interaction between tools + other objects

• tools being manufactured specifically for purpose, which requires causal reasoning, doesn’t occur as much in animals + is not an intrinsic part of life as it is for humans

tool use + language is defining for humans in a way it isn’t for animals, but studying animal took behaviour is still useful for inferring about our own

why specifically can studying animal tool use be useful

studying animals with similar genetic makeup/neuroanatomical structure can be useful for uncovering the brain areas implicated in idiomotor apraxia → condition affecting volitional tool use in humans, e.g. interacting with cutlery

how was tool use comparatively studied in humans + Rhesus monkeys (Peeters et al., 2009)

used fMRIs on both species while observing actions + interactions with tool use, as both humans + monkeys present similar activation of brain pathways when interacting with tools

• assessed how brain activation differs

what brain area specific to tool use do humans possess that Rhesus monkeys do not

humans present unique left-lateralised inferior parietal lobe activation when using tools

• possess a brain area called the anterior supramarginal gyrus (aSMG) which is specifically activated → monkeys do not have a neural analogue for this

what are Rizzzolatti + Matelli (2003)’s 3 streams of perception + action

• dorso-dorsal → the ‘where’ stream

• ventral → the ‘what’ stream

• ventro-dorsal → the ‘how’ stream → projects to inferior parietal lobule

how does neuroanatomy of tool use differ between humans + Rhesus monkeys

monkeys do not possess the ventro-dorsal stream, so do not have the ability to understand how one object impacts another like humans do

• suggests human brain areas = necessary in uniquely + expertly interacting with our environment, in a way that separates us from other animals

what 4 insight-related skills have Kirsch et al. (2008) identified in corvids

• object permanence

• theory of mind

• mental time travel

• tool use/causal reasoning