Spontaneous versus trained numerical abilities. A comparison between the two main tools to study numerical competence in non-human animals
Spontaneous versus trained numerical abilities. A comparison between the two main tools to study numerical competence in non-human animals
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jneumeth.2014.04.027
复制
发表时间：
2014-08-30
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Bisazza, Angelo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Agrillo, Christian;Bisazza, Angelo
大量的实验证据表明，哺乳动物、鸟类和鱼类等各种动物都能够处理数字信息。据报道，在某些情况下，物种之间存在相当大的差异，目前围绕着所有脊椎动物是否共享相同的数字系统的问题进行了广泛的辩论。问题的部分原因是，这些研究往往使用不同的方法，这种情况下，可能会引入混淆因素的比较分析，在大多数研究中，两个主要的方法学方法被使用：自发选择测试和培训程序。前一种方法包括向受试者呈现两组生物相关刺激（例如，食物或社交伙伴），其数量不同，假设如果它们能够区分这两个数量，则期望它们自发地选择较大/较小的数量。在后一种方法中，受试者经历大量的训练，其中一些中性刺激（例如，一个数量的点）与奖励和学习的能力，数字规则被视为证据的numerical abilities.We审查了有关这一主题的文献，突出的相关性，和潜在的弱点，在控制混杂因素获得的任何一种方法。(C)2014爱思唯尔有限公司版权所有。
A large body of experimental evidence shows that animals as diverse as mammals, birds, and fish are capable of processing numerical information. Considerable differences have been reported in some cases among species and a wide debate currently surrounds the issue of whether all vertebrates share the same numerical systems or not. Part of the problem is due to the fact that these studies often use different methods, a circumstance that potentially introduces confounding factors in a comparative analysis.In most studies, two main methodological approaches have been used: spontaneous choice tests and training procedures. The former approach consists of presenting to the subjects two groups of biologically-relevant stimuli (e.g., food items or social companions) differing in numerosity with the assumption that if they are able to discriminate between the two quantities, they are expected to spontaneously select the larger/smaller quantity. In the latter approach, subjects undergo extensive training in which some neutral stimuli (e.g., a quantity of dots) are associated with a reward and the capacity to learn a numerical rule is taken as evidence of numerical abilities.We review the literature on this topic, highlighting the relevance, and potential weaknesses in controlling confounding factors obtained with either approach. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.