volume 50 issue 1 pages 153-166

Cognitive flexibility in the wild: Individual differences in reversal learning are explained primarily by proactive interference, not by sampling strategies, in two passerine bird species

Publication typeJournal Article
Publication date2022-01-11
scimago Q3
wos Q2
SJR0.566
CiteScore2.8
Impact factor1.5
ISSN15434494, 15434508
Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
Cognitive Neuroscience
Behavioral Neuroscience
Abstract
Behavioural flexibility allows animals to adjust to changes in their environment. Although the cognitive processes that explain flexibility have been relatively well studied in psychology, this is less true for animals in the wild. Here we use data collected automatically during self-administered discrimination-learning trials for two passerine species, and during four phases (habituation, initial learning, first reversal and second reversal) in order to decompose sources of consistent among-individual differences in reversal learning, a commonly used measure for cognitive flexibility. First, we found that, as expected, proactive interference was significantly repeatable and had a negative effect on reversal learning, confirming that individuals with poor ability to inhibit returning to a previously rewarded feeder were also slower to reversal learn. Second, to our knowledge for the first time in a natural population, we examined how sampling of non-rewarding options post-learning affected reversal-learning performance. Sampling quantity was moderately repeatable in blue tits but not great tits; sampling bias, the variance in the proportion of visits to each non-rewarded feeder, was not repeatable for either species. Sampling behaviour did not predict variation in reversal-learning speed to any significant extent. Finally, the repeatability of reversal learning was explained almost entirely by proactive interference for blue tits; in great tits, the effects of proactive interference and sampling bias on the repeatability of reversal learning were indistinguishable. Our results highlight the value of proactive interference as a more direct measurement of cognitive flexibility and shed light on how animals respond to changes in their environment.
Found 
Found 

Top-30

Journals

1
2
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
2 publications, 14.29%
eLife
2 publications, 14.29%
Animal Cognition
2 publications, 14.29%
Birds
1 publication, 7.14%
Journal of Intelligence
1 publication, 7.14%
PeerJ
1 publication, 7.14%
Science of the Total Environment
1 publication, 7.14%
Facets
1 publication, 7.14%
Animal Behaviour
1 publication, 7.14%
Biology Letters
1 publication, 7.14%
1
2

Publishers

1
2
3
The Royal Society
3 publications, 21.43%
MDPI
2 publications, 14.29%
Elsevier
2 publications, 14.29%
eLife Sciences Publications
2 publications, 14.29%
Springer Nature
2 publications, 14.29%
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
1 publication, 7.14%
PeerJ
1 publication, 7.14%
Canadian Science Publishing
1 publication, 7.14%
1
2
3
  • We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
  • Statistics recalculated weekly.

Are you a researcher?

Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
Metrics
14
Share
Cite this
GOST |
Cite this
GOST Copy
Morand-Ferron J. et al. Cognitive flexibility in the wild: Individual differences in reversal learning are explained primarily by proactive interference, not by sampling strategies, in two passerine bird species // Learning and Behavior. 2022. Vol. 50. No. 1. pp. 153-166.
GOST all authors (up to 50) Copy
Morand-Ferron J., Reichert M. S., Quinn J. L. Cognitive flexibility in the wild: Individual differences in reversal learning are explained primarily by proactive interference, not by sampling strategies, in two passerine bird species // Learning and Behavior. 2022. Vol. 50. No. 1. pp. 153-166.
RIS |
Cite this
RIS Copy
TY - JOUR
DO - 10.3758/s13420-021-00505-1
UR - https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-021-00505-1
TI - Cognitive flexibility in the wild: Individual differences in reversal learning are explained primarily by proactive interference, not by sampling strategies, in two passerine bird species
T2 - Learning and Behavior
AU - Morand-Ferron, Julie
AU - Reichert, Michael S.
AU - Quinn, John L.
PY - 2022
DA - 2022/01/11
PB - Springer Nature
SP - 153-166
IS - 1
VL - 50
PMID - 35015239
SN - 1543-4494
SN - 1543-4508
ER -
BibTex |
Cite this
BibTex (up to 50 authors) Copy
@article{2022_Morand-Ferron,
author = {Julie Morand-Ferron and Michael S. Reichert and John L. Quinn},
title = {Cognitive flexibility in the wild: Individual differences in reversal learning are explained primarily by proactive interference, not by sampling strategies, in two passerine bird species},
journal = {Learning and Behavior},
year = {2022},
volume = {50},
publisher = {Springer Nature},
month = {jan},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-021-00505-1},
number = {1},
pages = {153--166},
doi = {10.3758/s13420-021-00505-1}
}
MLA
Cite this
MLA Copy
Morand-Ferron, Julie, et al. “Cognitive flexibility in the wild: Individual differences in reversal learning are explained primarily by proactive interference, not by sampling strategies, in two passerine bird species.” Learning and Behavior, vol. 50, no. 1, Jan. 2022, pp. 153-166. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-021-00505-1.