Short-Term Memory Effects on Crossing the Boundary: Discrimination between Large and Small Quantities in Angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare).
Rudimentary quantification abilities are found in numerous animal species and in human infants all demonstrating the ability to discriminate between quantities differing in numerical size. An open question is whether individuals rely on different underlying systems to discriminate between large (analogue magnitude system (AMS) for number of items exceeding 3) and small quantities (object-file system (OFS) for number of items below 4), or they use only one system (AMS) for the entire number range. The two-system hypothesis has been supported by finding reduced ability to discriminate between quantities that cross the large-small boundary in several species. Recently, the role of cognitive representation, i.e., memory, in quantity discrimination has also been recognized. Here, we investigated whether angelfish can discriminate quantities across the boundary under two memory conditions. In a binary choice test, single angelfish were allowed to see groups (shoals) of conspecifics of different numerical size on the two sides of their test tank. In Experiment 1, their choice was recorded after a 2-sec retention interval during which shoal size information was unavailable. Angelfish were able to discriminate the larger shoal across the boundary when the shoals differed by a 2:1 or higher ratio, but not when the ratio was lower. In Experiment 2, however, with a 15-sec retention interval, angelfish could only detect a four-fold difference in ratio but failed to detect a three- or a two-fold difference across the boundary. These results suggest that angelfish can remember smaller differences for a short (2 sec) but not for a longer (15 sec) period. Together with previous findings, the current results support the idea that angelfish use two distinct systems for representing quantity, but they may recruit the AMS even for the small number range under some circumstances, e.g., when higher memory demand is imposed by a greater retention interval.
Department of Psychology, University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain.
Luis M
LM
Gómez-Laplaza
Department of Psychology, University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga, Canada.
Robert
R
Gerlai
Front Psychol. 2012 Dec 17;3:550
23420691
J Exp Child Psychol. 2013 Jan;114(1):102-10
22608189
Psychol Sci. 2006 May;17(5):401-6
16683927
Anim Cogn. 2015 Jan;18(1):219-29
25108417
Anim Cogn. 2014 Mar;17(2):307-16
23892885
Proc Biol Sci. 2008 Oct 22;275(1649):2373-9
18611847
Cognition. 2003 Aug;89(1):B15-25
12893126
Anim Cogn. 2015 Sep;18(5):1125-31
26099740
Infancy. 2013 Nov 1;18(6):null
24353478
Anim Cogn. 2009 Sep;12(5):733-8
19387706
Anim Cogn. 2007 Jan;10(1):63-70
16868736
Front Psychol. 2013 May 02;4:253
23653619
Anim Cogn. 2013 Mar;16(2):307-12
23288253
J Neurosci Methods. 2014 Aug 30;234:82-91
24793399
Cognition. 2013 Sep;128(3):331-52
23748213
J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2008 Jul;34(3):388-99
18665721
Anim Cogn. 2011 Jul;14(4):565-74
21409443
Zoology (Jena). 2007;110(5):369-76
17707619
Cognition. 2005 Oct;97(3):295-313
16260263
Front Psychol. 2012 Nov 12;3:484
23162518
Cognition. 2009 Aug;112(2):343-8
19520367
Psychon Bull Rev. 2016 Aug;23(4):1206-13
26689808
J Cogn Neurosci. 2011 Sep;23(9):2336-51
20961170
Proc Biol Sci. 2000 Apr 22;267(1445):829-33
10819154
Front Hum Neurosci. 2011 Nov 29;5:150
22144955
J Comp Psychol. 2014 Feb;128(1):11-20
24060246
J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2007 Jan;33(1):42-54
17227194
J Comp Psychol. 2015 Nov;129(4):388-93
26348968
Front Psychol. 2015 Oct 29;6:1649
26579032
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 27;8(12):e83880
24386299
J Comp Psychol. 2014 May;128(2):163-71
24188620
Anim Cogn. 2011 Jan;14(1):1-9
20607574
Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Feb;4(2):59-65
10652523
Psychol Sci. 2004 Feb;15(2):94-9
14738515
Anim Cogn. 2011 Jan;14(1):103-15
20845053
Psychol Sci. 2002 Mar;13(2):150-6
11933999
Anim Cogn. 2013 Jul;16(4):557-64
23334508
Dev Psychol. 2009 Nov;45(6):1583-94
19899916
Anim Cogn. 2013 May;16(3):373-83
23161214
Anim Cogn. 2012 Nov;15(6):1129-40
22825034
PLoS One. 2010 Dec 22;5(12):e15232
21203508
Anim Cogn. 2012 Mar;15(2):215-21
21909934
J Comp Psychol. 2007 Aug;121(3):241-9
17696650
J Exp Biol. 2014 Jun 1;217(Pt 11):1902-9
24871921
PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e31923
22355405
PLoS One. 2010 Nov 24;5(11):e15516
21124802
Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Jul;8(7):307-14
15242690
Trends Cogn Sci. 2010 Dec;14(12):542-51
21055996
J Comp Psychol. 2015 Feb;129(1):78-83
25364939
Dev Sci. 2009 Apr;12(3):453-63
19371370