Rate currencies and the foraging starling: The fallacy of the averages revisited
Rate currencies and the foraging starling: The fallacy of the averages revisited
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/beheco/7.3.341
复制
发表时间：
1996-09-01
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Kacelnik, A
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bateson, M;Kacelnik, A
在经典的最佳觅食模型中，长期能量摄入率（预期食物量与预期时间的比率）被假定为最大化货币，因为这样做与最小化替代机会的损失是一致的。在这里，我们在实验室中使用欧洲椋鸟（Sturnus vulgaris）对这种可能性和各种替代方案进行了定量研究。鸟儿在两个提示之间进行选择。其中一个提出了一种选择，该选择导致固定的食物延迟（“单一标准”，实验1）或两种同等可能的食物延迟之一（“双重标准”，实验2和3）。另一个提示表示“调整选项”，包括一次延迟进食。该选项根据鸟类之前做出的选择进行调整，当首选标准时改善，而当首选调整选项时恶化。通过改变食物的延迟或食物的量来进行调整。该程序的基本原理是调整选项稳定的参数值应反映标准的主观值。这在实验 1 中得到了验证。在实验 2 和 3 中，调整选项围绕参数值波动，这些参数值被解释为存在双重标准的主观等价物。结果与基于最小化失去机会的预测相矛盾。首先，鸟类在为两个选项分配价值时并未包括所有时间间隔，其次，鸟类使用预期金额与时间的比率而不是预期金额与预期时间的比率作为其汇率货币。
In classical optimal foraging models long-term rate of energy intake (the ratio of expected amount of food over expected time) is assumed to be the maximized currency because doing this is consistent with minimizing the loss of alternative opportunities. Here this possibility and various alternatives are examined quantitatively using European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) in the laboratory. The birds chose between two cues. One signaled an option that led to either a fixed delay to food (''single standard,'' Experiment 1) or to one of two equally probable delays to food (''double standard,'' Experiments 2 and 3). The other cue signaled an ''adjusting option'' consisting of a single delay to food. This option adjusted according to the previous choices made by the birds, improving when the standard had been preferred and worsening when the adjusting option had been preferred. Adjustments were made either by changing the delay to food or the amount of food. The rationale underlying this procedure was that the parameter values at which the adjusting option stabilizes should reflect the subjective value of the standard. This was validated in Experiment 1. In Experiments 2 and 3 the adjusting option fluctuated around parameter values that are interpreted as fielding subjective equivalents of the double standard. The results contradict the predictions based on minimizing the lost opportunity. First, the birds did not include all the time intervals in their assignment of value to the two options, and second, the birds used the expected ratio of amount over time rather than the ratio of expected amount over expected time as their rate currency.