4.5 Article

Male and female guppies differ in speed but not in accuracy in visual discrimination learning

期刊

ANIMAL COGNITION
卷 19, 期 4, 页码 733-744

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10071-016-0969-2

关键词

Cognitive sex differences; Cognitive style; Decision speed; Discrimination learning; Fish cognition; Poecilia reticulata

资金

  1. Progetto Strategico NEURAT'' from University of Padova

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In many species, males and females have different reproductive roles and/or differ in their ecological niche. Since in these cases the two sexes often face different cognitive challenges, selection may promote some degree of cognitive differentiation, an issue that has received relatively little attention so far. We investigated the existence of sex differences in visual discrimination learning in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata, a fish species in which females show complex mate choice based on male colour pattern. We tested males and females for their ability to learn a discrimination between two different shapes (experiment 1) and between two identical figures with a different orientation (experiment 2). In experiment 3, guppies were required to select an object of the odd colour in a group of five objects. Colours changed daily, and therefore, the solution for this task was facilitated by concept learning. We found males' and females' accuracy practically overlapped in the three experiments, suggesting that the two sexes have similar discrimination learning abilities. Yet, males showed faster decision time than females without any evident speed-accuracy trade-off. This result indicates the existence of consistent between-sex differences in decision speed perhaps due to impulsivity rather than speed in information processing. Our results align with previous literature, indicating that sex differences in cognitive abilities are the exception rather than the rule, while sex differences in cognitive style, i.e. the way in which an individual faces a cognitive task, are much more common.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据