ArticleAnimal cognition2020
The inhibitory control of pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) weakens when previously learned environmental information becomes unpredictable.
Article in Animal cognition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Learning and motor inhibitory control in crows and domestic chickens.Royal Society open science · 2021Article
- Response learning confounds assays of inhibitory control on detour tasks.Animal cognition · 2020Article
- The inhibitory control of pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) weakens when previously learned environmental information becomes unpredictable.Animal cognition · 2020Article
- Heritability and correlations among learning and inhibitory control traits.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral EcologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Inhibitory control (IC) is the ability to intentionally restrain initial, ineffective responses to a stimulus and instead exhibit an alternative behaviour that is not pre-potent but which effectively attains a reward. Individuals (both humans and non-human animals) differ in their IC, perhaps as a result of the different environmental conditions they have experienced. We experimentally manipulated environmental predictability, specifically how reliable information linking a cue to a reward was, over a very short time period and tested how this affected an individual's IC. We gave 119 pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) the opportunity to learn to associate a visual cue with a food reward in a binary choice task. We then perturbed this association for half the birds, whereas control birds continued to be rewarded when making the correct choice. We immediately measured all birds' on a detour IC task and again 3 days later. Perturbed birds immediately performed worse than control birds, making more unrewarded pecks at the apparatus than control birds, although this effect was less for individuals that had more accurately learned the initial association. The effect of the perturbation was not seen 3 days later, suggesting that individual IC performance is highly plastic and susceptible to recent changes in environmental predictability. Specifically, individuals may perform poorly in activities requiring IC immediately after information in their environment is perturbed, with the perturbation inducing emotional arousal. Our finding that recent environmental changes can affect IC performance, depending on how well an animal has learned about that environment, means that interpreting individual differences in IC must account for both prior experience and relevant individual learning abilities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.