Using an Innovation Arena to compare wild-caught and laboratory Goffin’s cockatoos

Abstract

The ability to innovate, i.e., to exhibit new or modified learned behaviours, can facilitate adaptation to environmental changes or exploiting novel resources. We hereby introduce a comparative approach for studying innovation rate, the ‘Innovation Arena’ (IA), featuring the simultaneous presentation of 20 interchangeable tasks, which subjects encounter repeatedly. The new design allows for the experimental study of innovation per time unit and for uncovering group-specific problem-solving abilities – an important feature for comparing animals with different predispositions and life histories. We applied the IA for the first time to investigate how long-term captivity affects innovative capacities in the Goffin’s cockatoo, an avian model species for animal innovation. We found that fewer temporarily-captive wild birds are inclined to consistently interact with the apparatus in comparison to laboratory-raised birds. However, those that are interested solve a similar number of tasks at a similar rate, indicating no difference in the cognitive ability to solve technical problems. Our findings thus provide a contrast to previous literature, which suggested enhanced cognitive abilities and technical problem-solving skills in long-term captive animals. We discuss the impact and discrepancy between motivation and cognitive ability on innovation rate. Our findings contribute to the debate on how captivity affects innovation in animals.

Chimpanzees’ (Pan troglodytes) problem-solving skills are influenced by housing facility and captive care duration

“…This higher motivation to manipulate and explore the apparatus could explain why they were more successful at innovating the use of the rope as a tool in this task. Recent findings from avian cognition have shown that Goffin's cockatoos (Cacatua goffiniana) that were temporarily held captive were less motivated to interact with a problem-solving task than those birds that had been hand-raised and lived longer in captivity (Rössler et al, 2020). Together with our study, such results suggest that captivity and human exposure may influence the motivational level rather than the animals' cognitive capacity per se.…”

Replications, Comparisons, Sampling and the Problem of Representativeness in Animal Cognition Research

“…Crabbe et al, 1999;Many Primates et al, 2019), but also by using multiple different experimenters and varying the conditions and treatments within sites (Baribault et al, 2018;Richter et al, 2010;Wurbel, 2002). For example, Rössler et al, (2020) compared the ability of a sample of wild-caught Goffin's cockatoos and a sample of laboratory-housed Goffin's cockatoos to physically manipulate an apparatus to access a reward. However, rather than presenting the cockatoos with a single apparatus, they were tested in an area with a total of 20 apparatuses.…”

Does captivity alter problem-solving behavior in Goffin’s cockatoos?

“…Researchers also argue that captive subjects can perhaps re-direct resources (energetic or cognitive) no longer required for foraging or avoiding predation to perform the task (reviewed in Benson-Amram et al, 2013), or that in the field dominant subjects may prevent subordinates from accessing the apparatus for the amount of time necessary for devising a solution (Gajdon et al, 2004). Rössler et al (2020) argue instead that the observed behavioral differences, at least for Goffin's cockatoos (Cacatua goffiniana), are only in motivationthat captive subjects may, for example, simply interact more readily with the apparatus for reasons related to boredom, play, or from expectancies of rewards based on prior experience (see also Smith, Greene, Hartsfield, & Pepperberg, 2021). Rössler et al (2020) show compelling evidence that for their subjects that…”

“…Rössler et al (2020) argue instead that the observed behavioral differences, at least for Goffin's cockatoos (Cacatua goffiniana), are only in motivationthat captive subjects may, for example, simply interact more readily with the apparatus for reasons related to boredom, play, or from expectancies of rewards based on prior experience (see also Smith, Greene, Hartsfield, & Pepperberg, 2021). Rössler et al (2020) show compelling evidence that for their subjects that…”

“…Such studies, which they review, usually engage subjects in a single task or at most a small set of assays; data from subjects challenged by only a limited range of tasks are particularly susceptible to being influenced by issues such as enculturation or pre-exposure. Rössler et al (2020), however, presented their parrots with a large battery of tasks (i.e., 20), allowing subjects to tackle them in their own preferred order. The assays, contained in plexiglass boxes, were arranged in a semi-circle arena and birds were given individual access; thus, no single subject could monopolize the apparatus.…”