Differential participation in cognitive tests is driven by personality, sex, body condition and experience

Abstract

Failure to participate in a cognitive test may result in sampling biases when measuring inter-individual variation in cognitive performances in both captive and wild populations. This would be problematic if particular classes of individuals consistently fail to participate, skewing data and making generalisations or comparisons difficult. We presented 144 pheasant chicks, raised under standardised conditions, with a battery of cognitive tests to investigate whether sex, body condition or personality traits, measured by differences in latencies to explore a novel object, novel environment or unknown conspecific, predicted individual variation in voluntary participation across 37 test sessions. In general, participation increased across testing sessions, yet patterns of participation differed with sex and body condition. Males with a high body condition were more likely to participate in early test sessions compared to males with a low body condition or females. While participation among males in high body condition was consistent across sessions, males with a low body condition and females, regardless of body condition, were more likely to participate in later, rather than earlier sessions. Individuals also showed repeatable behaviours across time and different contexts, revealing not only that the exploration of novelty, but also that the order that subjects entered the testing arena and their latencies to acquire a freely available meal-worm reward may be considered valid proxies for different personality traits. During each test session, those individuals that were among the first to voluntarily enter the testing arena were more likely to participate in subsequent trials. Moreover, when isolated in the testing arena, individuals that rapidly acquired a freely available meal-worm, positioned on the testing apparatus, were also more likely to participate in a cognitive test. Our findings therefore reveal that sex, body condition and personality traits, along with habituation to the testing paradigms, all play important roles in determining whether or not particular individuals participate in cognitive tests. Sampling biases may therefore misrepresent our understanding of variation in cognitive performance in wild and captive populations, making individual differences in cognition difficult to interpret.

Are generalists more innovative than specialists? A comparison of innovative abilities in two wild sympatric mouse lemur species

“…For example, pheasant chicks in better body condition entered a testing chamber earlier than pheasants in less good body condition and were subsequently more likely to participate in later sessions [94]. However, in both species of mouse lemurs, this morphology-based measure of motivation did not influence innovative abilities, which is in line with other studies [3,19,71,94,95] but in contrast to the aforementioned study on problem-solving abilities in grey mouse lemurs [69]. This study was conducted at the end of the rainy season, where mouse lemurs are generally in better body condition, and our study was conducted during the dry season where mouse lemurs are generally in a less good body condition.…”

Age and Experience Based Neurocognitive Performance of Seafarers

“…In the process, each cognitive ability shows different characteristics in respect to rate of cognitive decline [9 and 10]. The usage of standardized neurocognitive tests is the primary way to analyze these differences and evaluate cognitive performances of individuals in an operation [11].…”

Learning is negatively associated with strength of left/right paw preference in wild grey squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis)

“…Testing squirrels in the wild is labour intensive and requires marked individuals to visit baited sites on a regular basis. Only nine of 31 marked individuals returned to participate in this study, and it is likely that they represent a self-selected subset in terms of boldness, aggression or some other characteristic that may also set them apart in terms of cognitive ability (van Horik, Langley, Whiteside & Madden, 2017) and lateralization (e.g. Reddon & Hurd, 2009).…”