Validity of Cognitive Tests for Non-human Animals: Pitfalls and Prospects

Schubiger, Michèle N.; Fichtel, Claudia; Burkart, Judith M.

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01835

Cited by 38 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 124 publications

(170 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Below, we discuss the main correlates of interspecific variation in cognitive performance in terms of flexible foraging strategies, spatiotemporal habitat exploration and food patch exploitation, as well as the degree of ecological specialisation. Further, we highlight the importance of considering potentially confounding factors when designing a study appropriate for the investigation of species-specific ecological adaptations (Shaw and Schmelz 2017;Schubiger et al 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking ecology and cognition: does ecological specialisation predict cognitive test performance?

Malsburg

Kappeler

Fichtel

2020

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Variation in cognitive abilities is thought to be linked to variation in brain size, which varies across species with either social factors (Social Intelligence Hypothesis) or ecological challenges (Ecological Intelligence Hypothesis). However, the nature of the ecological processes invoked by the Ecological Intelligence Hypothesis, like adaptations to certain habitat characteristics or dietary requirements, remains relatively poorly known. Here, we review comparative studies that experimentally investigated interspecific variation in cognitive performance in relation to a species’ degree of ecological specialisation. Overall, the relevant literature was biased towards studies of mammals and birds as well as studies focusing on ecological challenges related to diet. We separated ecological challenges into those related to searching for food, accessing a food item and memorising food locations. We found interspecific variation in cognitive performance that can be explained by adaptations to different foraging styles. Species-specific adaptations to certain ecological conditions, like food patch distribution, characteristics of food items or seasonality also broadly predicted variation in cognitive abilities. A species’ innovative problem-solving and spatial processing ability, for example, could be explained by its use of specific foraging techniques or search strategies, respectively. Further, habitat generalists were more likely to outperform habitat specialists. Hence, we found evidence that ecological adaptations and cognitive performance are linked and that the classification concept of ecological specialisation can explain variation in cognitive performance only with regard to habitat, but not dietary specialisation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking ecology and cognition: does ecological specialisation predict cognitive test performance?

Malsburg

Kappeler

Fichtel

2020

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Theoretically, both tasks we used should measure spatial cognition because they required individuals to use and remember specific location cues with food rewards, allowing them to return to that location more often than one would expect by chance (Olton, 1977). One possible explanation for the lack of correlation between cognitive tasks is that non-cognitive factors -for example motivation, inter-trial and inter-test intervals, personality, stress, the external environment, and motor skills -influenced performance differently across tasks (Schubiger et al, 2020). Although we had no a priori reason to expect this might be the case, it must remain a possibility since we did not control for these effects.…”

Section: Spatial Cognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

No Evidence for Cross-Contextual Consistency in Spatial Cognition or Behavioral Flexibility in a Passerine

Troisi¹,

Cooke²,

Davidson³

et al. 2021

AB&C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the evolution of cognitive differences among species has long been of interest in ecology, whether natural selection acts on cognitive processes within populations has only begun to receive similar attention. One of the key challenges is to understand how consistently cognitive traits within any one domain are expressed over time and across different contexts, as this has direct implications for the way in which selection might act on this variation. Animal studies typically measure a cognitive domain using only one task in one context and assume that this captures the likely expression of that domain in different contexts. This use of limited and restricted measures is not surprising because, from an ecologist’s perspective, cognitive tasks are laborious to employ, and if the measure requires learning a particular aspect of the task (e.g., reward type, cue availability, scale of testing), then it is difficult to repeat the task as the learning is context specific. Thus, our knowledge of whether individual differences in cognitive abilities are consistent across contexts is limited, and current evidence suggests that consistency is weak. We tested up to 32 wild great tits (Parus major) to characterize the consistency of two cognitive abilities, each in two different contexts: 1) spatial cognition at two different spatial scales, and 2) behavioral flexibility as performance in a detour reaching task and reversal learning in a spatial task. We found no evidence of a correlation between individuals’ performance in two measures of spatial cognition or two measures of behavioral flexibility. This suggests that cognitive performance is highly plastic and sensitive to differences across tasks, that variants of these well-known tasks may tap into different combinations of both cognitive and non-cognitive mechanisms, or that the tasks simply do not adequately measure each putative cognitive domain. Our results highlight the challenges of developing standardized cognitive assays to explain natural behavior and to understand the selective consequences of that variation.

show abstract

“…However, whether the field has vastly improved its methods along these lines is debated. Concerns about experimenter bias (Beran, 2012;Burghardt et al, 2012), parsimony (Fitzpatrick, 2008;Meketa, 2014), and validity (Lind, 2018;Schubiger et al, 2020;Shaw & Schmelz, 2017;Völter et al, 2018) still dominate the literature today, and concerns have also been raised about the reliability of the statistical effects that are reported in the animal cognition literature (Beran, 2018;Stevens, 2017).…”

Section: The Hidden Side Of Animal Cognition Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Hidden Side of Animal Cognition Research: Scientists’ Attitudes Toward Bias, Replicability and Scientific Practice

Farrar¹,

Ostojić²,

Clayton³

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal cognition research aims to understand animal minds by using a diverse range of methods across an equally diverse range of species. Throughout its history, the field has sought to mitigate various biases that occur when studying animal minds, from experimenter effects to anthropomorphism. Recently, there has also been a focus on how common scientific practices might affect the reliability and validity of published research. Usually, these issues are discussed in the literature by a small group of scholars with a specific interest in the topics. This study aimed to survey a wider range of animal cognition researchers to ask about their attitudes towards classic and contemporary issues facing the field. Two-hundred and ten active animal cognition researchers completed our survey, and provided answers on questions relating to bias, replicability, statistics, publication, and belief in animal cognition. Collectively, researchers were wary of bias in the research field as a whole, but less so in their own work. Despite sometimes (39.7% of responses) or often (38.8% of responses) hoping for one result over another, researchers reported that they could often (45.8% of responses) or always (38.4% of responses) detach from any biases to perform objectively fair tests of animal cognition. Over 70% of researchers endorsed Morgan’s canon as a useful principle but many caveated this in their free-text responses, and researchers self-reported that a median of 80% of their studies had been published. Their free-text responses suggested a stronger publication bias against negative and inconclusive results, and results that questioned “preferred” theories. Researchers rarely reported having performed questionable research practices themselves — however they thought that other researchers sometimes (52.7% of responses) or often (27.9% of responses) perform them. Researchers near unanimously agreed that replication studies are important but too infrequently performed in animal cognition research, and 44.7% of researchers agreed that their own area (44.7% of responses), or other areas (73.0% of responses) of research could experience a ‘replication crisis’ if replication studies were performed. Consistently, participants’ free-text responses provided a nuanced picture of the challenges animal cognition research faces, and highlighted many possible improvements. Overall, these data provide a picture of active researchers’ beliefs about the animal cognition research processes that can be used to inform debates on where and how the field can improve.

show abstract

Validity of Cognitive Tests for Non-human Animals: Pitfalls and Prospects

Cited by 38 publications

References 124 publications

Linking ecology and cognition: does ecological specialisation predict cognitive test performance?

Linking ecology and cognition: does ecological specialisation predict cognitive test performance?

No Evidence for Cross-Contextual Consistency in Spatial Cognition or Behavioral Flexibility in a Passerine

The Hidden Side of Animal Cognition Research: Scientists’ Attitudes Toward Bias, Replicability and Scientific Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About