Animal Decision-Making: Sequential Versus Simultaneous Choice

动物决策：顺序选择与同时选择

• 批准号: BB/G007144/1
• 负责人: Alex Kacelnik
• 金额: $ 60.93万
• 依托单位: University of Oxford
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Research Grant
• 财政年份: 2009
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2009 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=BB%2FG007144%2F1
• 关键词: Animal; Decision; Making; Sequential; Versus

We are building a theory of decision-making, and to do this we investigate how birds take decisions. In behavioural science a decision is not assumed to result from thoughtful deliberation but refers to what organisms do when several actions are possible. In humans, introspection can create the perception (often inaccurate) that one's own decisions are driven by evaluation of each alternative, and as a consequence people often assume that animals also choose by evaluating alternatives. If this were true, choosing would take information-processing effort and time: more options, more time. For instance, if a lion sees a zebra, it may start a chase, but if it sees both a zebra and a wildebeest, it would evaluate their relative merits. If it chooses the zebra, it would have taken longer to start the chase. The paradox of choice, for instance, states that more options make choice more difficult. We found that the opposite is true in starlings: they take longer to take a lonely alternative than when they take the same alternative in a choice situation. In our experiments the times taken to take each option when faced alone predict very accurately how long it takes when it takes it out of a choice, and the shortening of time in choices results from the way the model works. Further, the time to accept each option when it is met alone depends not only on its absolute properties, but also on the benefit it gives relative to the context. To deal with all these findings, we used ideas originating in biology, economics and psychology to propose the Sequential Choice Model or SCM for short. SCM postulates that the mechanisms used by birds to choose between options are the same they use when facing each option alone. SCM incorporates the idea that these mechanisms evolved as adaptations to environments in which meeting different options simultaneously is rare, but meeting them sequentially is common. Thus, there are no special adaptations for simultaneous choices, but the time to chase each alternative is precisely tuned to exploit the benefits it gives compared with the opportunities in the whole environment. The SCM very effectively explained and predicted (post-hoc) the results in our original experiments, but the real value of a theoretical model is when it works for situations different from those that led to its inception. We propose to test SCM in choice problems that have never been studied from this perspective and to see if we still observe the same predictive precision including the shortening of decision times in choices. We'll use experiments that require cognition that might be expected to be time consuming. In one of them, a blue light is shown for a time lasting between 0 and 30 s, and after that either a red or a green light shows (In separate trials). If it is red, after the bird pecks the key it gets food after waiting 15 s, but if it is green the waiting time is 30 s minus the time the blue light had been on. Thus, if blue lasted 10 s, then green's waiting is 20 s, but if blue lasted 25 s, then green's waiting is 5 s. We measure how long the starling takes to peck in both red and green no-choice trials. On other (choice) trials, after the blue light goes off both red and green show, and we look at which one the bird chooses and how long it takes. To minimise waiting for food, birds should choose red if blue lasted less than 15 s and green if it lasted longer, but they don't do exactly this. SCM predicts what they will do using the times to peck red or green in no-choice trials, and it also predicts how long it will take to peck either: it should take less in choice than in no-choice trials. Since choice involves consulting the memory for the duration of blue one might expect choice to take extra time, but SCM predicts the opposite. If the SCM predictions are met, this would be evidence that it applies to very different situations from those in which it originated, and hence that it is a very valuable model.

我们正在建立一个决策理论，为了做到这一点，我们调查鸟类是如何做出决策的。在行为科学中，一个决定并不被认为是经过深思熟虑的结果，而是指有机体在几个可能的行动时所做的事情。在人类中，内省可能会产生一种看法(通常是不准确的)，即一个人自己的决定是由对每个选择的评估驱动的，因此，人们经常认为动物也是通过评估选择来选择的。如果这是真的，选择将需要信息处理的努力和时间：更多的选择，更多的时间。例如，如果狮子看到斑马，它可能会开始追逐，但如果它同时看到斑马和角马，它会评估它们的相对优点。如果它选择了斑马，那么开始追逐就需要更长的时间。例如，选择的悖论指出，更多的选择使选择变得更加困难。我们发现，八哥的情况正好相反：在选择的情况下，它们选择孤独的替代方案所花的时间比选择相同的替代方案所需的时间更长。在我们的实验中，单独面对每个选项所花费的时间非常准确地预测了当它从一个选项中删除时需要多长时间，而选择时间的缩短源于模型的工作方式。此外，当每项选择单独得到满足时，接受它的时间不仅取决于它的绝对性质，而且还取决于它相对于背景所给予的好处。为了处理所有这些发现，我们利用起源于生物学、经济学和心理学的想法，提出了序贯选择模型，简称SCM。SCM假设，鸟类在选项之间进行选择的机制与它们单独面对每个选项时使用的机制相同。SCM结合了这样的观点，即这些机制是作为对环境的适应而演变的，在这种环境中，同时满足不同选择的情况很少，但顺序满足它们是常见的。因此，对于同时的选择没有特殊的适应，但追逐每一种选择的时间被精确地调整，以利用与整个环境中的机会相比所带来的好处。SCM非常有效地解释和预测了我们最初实验中的结果，但理论模型的真正价值是当它在不同于导致它开始的情况下工作时。我们建议在从来没有从这个角度研究过的选择问题中测试SCM，看看我们是否仍然观察到相同的预测精度，包括缩短选择的决策时间。我们将使用需要认知的实验，这可能会很耗时。在其中一个实验中，在S 0到30之间的一段时间内显示蓝灯，然后显示红灯或绿灯(在单独的试验中)。如果是红色的，鸟啄了钥匙后，等待15 S就会得到食物；如果是绿色的，等待时间是30 S减去蓝灯亮起的时间。因此，如果蓝色持续10 S，那么绿色的等待是20 S，但如果蓝色持续25 S，那么绿色的等待是5 S。在红色和绿色的非选择试验中，我们都测量了八哥啄食的时间。在其他(选择)试验中，在蓝灯熄灭后，红灯和绿灯都显示出来，我们看看鸟选择了哪一个，以及花了多长时间。为了最大限度地减少等待食物的时间，鸟类应该选择红色，如果蓝色持续时间低于15 S，则选择绿色，如果持续时间更长，则选择绿色，但它们并不这样做。SCM预测他们在非选择试验中会做什么，它还预测了在非选择试验中啄红色或绿色所需的时间：在选择试验中，它应该比在非选择试验中花费更少的时间。因为选择涉及到查询蓝色持续时间的记忆，所以人们可能会认为选择需要额外的时间，但SCM的预测正好相反。如果SCM的预测得到满足，这将证明它适用于与其起源时非常不同的情况，因此它是一个非常有价值的模型。

项目成果

Evolution and the Mechanisms of Decision Making

进化与决策机制

• 发表时间: 2012
• 作者: Kacelnik A

Cognitive mechanisms of risky choice: Is there an evaluation cost?

• DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2011.09.007
• 发表时间: 2012-02-01
• 期刊: BEHAVIOURAL PROCESSES
• 影响因子: 1.3
• 作者: Aw, Justine;Monteiro, Tiago;Kacelnik, Alex
• 通讯作者: Kacelnik, Alex

Choosing fast and simply: Construction of preferences by starlings through parallel option valuation.

快速而简单的选择：椋鸟通过平行期权估值构建偏好。

• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000841
• 发表时间: 2020
• 期刊: PLoS biology
• 影响因子: 9.8
• 作者: Monteiro T

Animal Thinking: Contemporary Issues in Comparative Cognition

动物思维：比较认知的当代问题

• 发表时间: 2011
• 作者: Kacelnik A