User Tools

Site Tools


uncategorized:bugs_cognitive_capabilities

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
Next revision Both sides next revision
uncategorized:bugs_cognitive_capabilities [2023/02/07 05:44]
aysjajohnson [Same versus Different]
uncategorized:bugs_cognitive_capabilities [2023/02/07 05:49]
aysjajohnson [Binary Mazes]
Line 107: Line 107:
  
 (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.)) 
Line 115: Line 117:
  
 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)) 
uncategorized/bugs_cognitive_capabilities.txt · Last modified: 2023/07/23 21:10 by katjagrace