| Both sides previous revision
Previous revision
Next revision
|
Previous revision
Next revision
Both sides next revision
|
uncategorized:bugs_cognitive_capabilities [2023/02/07 05:42]
aysjajohnson [Tool Use] |
uncategorized:bugs_cognitive_capabilities [2023/02/07 05:49]
aysjajohnson [Binary Mazes] |
| |
| (Note: some of the results in the following paragraphs seem potentially dubious. Refer to this footnote((These results indicate an incredibly high level of cognitive sophistication. This has led to some speculation about the veracity of the claims. For instance, in Advanced Cognition in Ants, Czaczkes notes that “The cognitive abilities reported in this body of work are so far advanced from other cognitive abilities reported for other insects or even great apes, corvids, or cetaceans that there is not yet consensus as to whether these results can be accepted at face value.” And similarly, “To my knowledge, the only published independent attempt to replicate simple contact-based directional communication [...] failed.”)) for a brief review of skepticism about the veracity of these studies.) | (Note: some of the results in the following paragraphs seem potentially dubious. Refer to this footnote((These results indicate an incredibly high level of cognitive sophistication. This has led to some speculation about the veracity of the claims. For instance, in Advanced Cognition in Ants, Czaczkes notes that “The cognitive abilities reported in this body of work are so far advanced from other cognitive abilities reported for other insects or even great apes, corvids, or cetaceans that there is not yet consensus as to whether these results can be accepted at face value.” And similarly, “To my knowledge, the only published independent attempt to replicate simple contact-based directional communication [...] failed.”)) for a brief review of skepticism about the veracity of these studies.) |
| | |
| | {{ binary_maze.png?350 }} |
| |
| There is another set of studies (reviewed by Reznikova here((Reznikova, “Experimental paradigms for studying cognition and communication in ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).” //Myrmecological News//, August 2008. ))) which aims to quantify how much sequential information scout ants are capable of transmitting to forager ants. They test this using Y mazes of varying sizes (also called binary mazes). The image below shows a binary maze of size two (i.e., there are two decision points).((Contrary to the image, in the experiments all troughs are filled with water so that ants must use the maze routes.)) | There is another set of studies (reviewed by Reznikova here((Reznikova, “Experimental paradigms for studying cognition and communication in ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).” //Myrmecological News//, August 2008. ))) which aims to quantify how much sequential information scout ants are capable of transmitting to forager ants. They test this using Y mazes of varying sizes (also called binary mazes). The image below shows a binary maze of size two (i.e., there are two decision points).((Contrary to the image, in the experiments all troughs are filled with water so that ants must use the maze routes.)) |
| |
| Furthermore, the amount of time it took for scouts to communicate the information((This was measured as the length (in seconds) between when the scout first touched the first forager ant and when the first two foragers left the nest for the maze.)) increased with increasing complexity of the sequence. For instance, random sequences such as LRLLRL took almost twice as long to communicate as repetitive sequences of the same length, e.g., LLLLLL. This suggests that ants were capable of compressing some of the regularities present in the sequential information. The table below shows some of these results. Each sequence was tested in around ten different runs of the experiment. | Furthermore, the amount of time it took for scouts to communicate the information((This was measured as the length (in seconds) between when the scout first touched the first forager ant and when the first two foragers left the nest for the maze.)) increased with increasing complexity of the sequence. For instance, random sequences such as LRLLRL took almost twice as long to communicate as repetitive sequences of the same length, e.g., LLLLLL. This suggests that ants were capable of compressing some of the regularities present in the sequential information. The table below shows some of these results. Each sequence was tested in around ten different runs of the experiment. |
| | |
| | {{ binary_maze_results.png?250 }} |
| | |
| Based on these studies, the researchers calculated that ants are capable of transmitting around 1 bit per minute.((In this study it was slightly less than 1 bit per minute, but in other studies it was slightly more.)) For reference, human languages have been estimated to transmit ~2400 bits per minute.((See "languages to gravitate around an information rate (IR) of about 39 bits/s." in Coupé et al., “Different languages, similar encoding efficient: Comparable information rates across the human communicative niche.” //Science Advances//, September 2019. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aaw2594)) | Based on these studies, the researchers calculated that ants are capable of transmitting around 1 bit per minute.((In this study it was slightly less than 1 bit per minute, but in other studies it was slightly more.)) For reference, human languages have been estimated to transmit ~2400 bits per minute.((See "languages to gravitate around an information rate (IR) of about 39 bits/s." in Coupé et al., “Different languages, similar encoding efficient: Comparable information rates across the human communicative niche.” //Science Advances//, September 2019. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aaw2594)) |
| ==== Same versus Different ==== | ==== Same versus Different ==== |
| |
| In a Y maze study, Oberhauser et al.((Oberhauser, F. B., Koch, A., De Agrò, M., Rex, K., & Czaczkes, T. J., “Ants resort to heuristics when facing relational-learning tasks they cannot solve.” //Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences//, August 2020, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.1262.)) tested whether ants appeared capable of understanding the concept of same and different using odors as stimuli. To do so, they first trained ants to, after smelling an initial odor, either approach the same odor in the decision chamber, or a different one. | In a Y maze study, Oberhauser et al.((Oberhauser, F. B., Koch, A., De Agrò, M., Rex, K., & Czaczkes, T. J., “Ants resort to heuristics when facing relational-learning tasks they cannot solve.” //Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences//, August 2020, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.1262.)) tested whether ants appeared capable of understanding the concept of same and different using odors as stimuli. To do so, they first trained ants to, after smelling an initial odor, either approach the same odor in the decision chamber, or a different one. After training, ants were able to identify the different odor 65% of the time. However, ants remained at chance levels for identifying the same odor throughout training. The authors concluded that these ants were unable to learn either the same or different concept. |
| | |
| After training, ants were able to identify the different odor 65% of the time. However, ants remained at chance levels for identifying the same odor throughout training. The authors concluded that these ants were unable to learn either the same or different concept. | |
| | |
| ===== Meta-cognition ===== | ===== Meta-cognition ===== |
| Ants will often use small items such as twigs and leaves to soak up liquid food sources. This behavior is flexible as ants will spontaneously use novel objects such as sponges for this task. Ants will also sometimes modify the instruments by ripping them into smaller pieces (Maák et al.((See “The ants experimented with the tools and chose those that were easiest to handle and could soak up plenty of liquid, such as bits of sponge or paper, despite them not being found in the insects’ natural environment.” In Maák, I., Lőrinczi, G., Le Quinquis, P., Módra, G., Bovet, D., Call, J., & d’ Ettorre, P., “Tool selection during foraging in two species of funnel ants.” //Animal Behaviour//, January 2017. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.11.005))). Furthermore, ants seem to choose objects appropriate for the situation, e.g., they will tend to use larger sponges for viscous honey and smaller pieces on watered down honey (Lorinczi et al.((See “In the case of water baits, pine needles were the most frequently dropped tools (2.68 < z < 4.43, P < 0.05), whereas no significant differences were observed among the other tools in terms of the frequency with which they were dropped (−2.35 < z < 1.40, 0.11 < P < 0.99) (Figure 4). In the case of honey-water baits, small soil grains were transported in significantly higher numbers than any other tools (8.32 < z < 12.65, P < 0.001), while leaves were the least frequently dropped tools (−12.65 < z < −5,58, P < 0.001) (Figure 4).” In Lőrinczi, G., Módra, G., Juhász, O., & Maák, I., “Which tools to use? Choice optimization in the tool-using ant, Aphaenogaster subterranea.” //Behavioral Ecology//, August 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ary110))). | Ants will often use small items such as twigs and leaves to soak up liquid food sources. This behavior is flexible as ants will spontaneously use novel objects such as sponges for this task. Ants will also sometimes modify the instruments by ripping them into smaller pieces (Maák et al.((See “The ants experimented with the tools and chose those that were easiest to handle and could soak up plenty of liquid, such as bits of sponge or paper, despite them not being found in the insects’ natural environment.” In Maák, I., Lőrinczi, G., Le Quinquis, P., Módra, G., Bovet, D., Call, J., & d’ Ettorre, P., “Tool selection during foraging in two species of funnel ants.” //Animal Behaviour//, January 2017. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.11.005))). Furthermore, ants seem to choose objects appropriate for the situation, e.g., they will tend to use larger sponges for viscous honey and smaller pieces on watered down honey (Lorinczi et al.((See “In the case of water baits, pine needles were the most frequently dropped tools (2.68 < z < 4.43, P < 0.05), whereas no significant differences were observed among the other tools in terms of the frequency with which they were dropped (−2.35 < z < 1.40, 0.11 < P < 0.99) (Figure 4). In the case of honey-water baits, small soil grains were transported in significantly higher numbers than any other tools (8.32 < z < 12.65, P < 0.001), while leaves were the least frequently dropped tools (−12.65 < z < −5,58, P < 0.001) (Figure 4).” In Lőrinczi, G., Módra, G., Juhász, O., & Maák, I., “Which tools to use? Choice optimization in the tool-using ant, Aphaenogaster subterranea.” //Behavioral Ecology//, August 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ary110))). |
| |
| Interestingly, ants' proclivity for using these items can be predicted by personality type (Maák et al. 2020). Specifically, if all of the “tool users” in a colony are removed, the exploratory ants (as judged by so-called “personality tests” such as whether they tend to stay near the center or roam the periphery in new environments) are the most likely to become the new “tool users.” | Interestingly, ants' proclivity for using these items can be predicted by personality type (Maák et al.((See “Personality predicted the probability to perform tool use: ants that showed higher exploratory activity and were more attracted to a prey in the personality tests became the new tool users when previous tool users were removed from the group.” In Maák, I., Roelandt, G., & d’Ettorre, P., “A small number of workers with specific personality traits perform tool use in ants.” //ELife//, December 2020. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.61298))). Specifically, if all of the “tool users” in a colony are removed, the exploratory ants (as judged by so-called “personality tests” such as whether they tend to stay near the center or roam the periphery in new environments) are the most likely to become the new “tool users.” |
| |
| Despite the ants' apparent flexibility in object use, none of these studies demonstrate that ants have an understanding of these instruments as tools. It seems fairly likely, for instance, that this flexibility stems from a combination of several hardwired cues such as softness of material, viscosity of liquid, etc., that enable them to choose objects well suited to the task at hand. | Despite the ants' apparent flexibility in object use, none of these studies demonstrate that ants have an understanding of these instruments as tools. It seems fairly likely, for instance, that this flexibility stems from a combination of several hardwired cues such as softness of material, viscosity of liquid, etc., that enable them to choose objects well suited to the task at hand. |
