Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39437844›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2024

Environmental complexity and regularity shape the evolution of cognition.

Cameron Rouse Turner, Thomas J H Morgan, Thomas L Griffiths

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Cameron Rouse TurnerComputational Cognitive Sciences Lab, Department of Computer Science, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3413-7860
Thomas J H MorganSchool of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2848-8461
Thomas L GriffithsComputational Cognitive Sciences Lab, Department of Computer Science, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5138-7255

Funding

TWCF
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The environmental complexity hypothesis suggests that cognition evolves to allow animals to negotiate a complex and changing environment. By contrast, signal detection theory suggests cognition exploits environmental regularities by containing biases (e.g. to avoid dangerous predators). Therefore, two significant bodies of theory on cognitive evolution may be in tension: one foregrounds environmental complexity, the other regularity. Difficulty in reconciling these theories stems from their focus on different aspects of cognition. The environmental complexity hypothesis focuses on the reliability of sensors in the origin of cognition, while signal detection theory focuses on decision making in cognitively sophisticated animals. Here, we extend the signal detection model to examine the joint evolution of mechanisms for detecting information (sensory systems) and those that process information to produce behaviour (decision-making systems). We find that the transition to cognition can only occur if processing compensates for unreliable sensors by trading-off errors. Further, we provide an explanation for why animals with sophisticated sensory systems nonetheless disregard the reliable information it provides, by having biases for particular behaviours. Our model suggests that there is greater nuance than has been previously appreciated, and that both complexity and regularity can promote cognition.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionCognitionAnimalsDecision MakingEnvironmentModels, BiologicalSignal Detection, Psychologicalcognitive evolutioninformation usesensory ecologysensory system evolutionsignal detection theory

Identifiers

PMID39437844
PMCPMC11495953

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.