Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro

eNeuro

Advanced Search

 

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT
PreviousNext
Research ArticleNew Research, Cognition and Behavior

Divergent Solutions to Visual Problem Solving across Mammalian Species

Faiz Mustafar, Michael A. Harvey, Abbas Khani, József Arató and Gregor Rainer
eNeuro 9 July 2018, 5 (4) ENEURO.0167-18.2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0167-18.2018
Faiz Mustafar
1Visual Cognition Laboratory, Department of Medicine, University of Fribourg, Fribourg 1700, Switzerland
2Department of Neuroscience, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 16150 Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael A. Harvey
1Visual Cognition Laboratory, Department of Medicine, University of Fribourg, Fribourg 1700, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Abbas Khani
3Department of Fundamental Neuroscience, University of Geneva, Geneva 1205, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
József Arató
4Department of Cognitive Science, Central European University, Budapest 1051, Hungary
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gregor Rainer
1Visual Cognition Laboratory, Department of Medicine, University of Fribourg, Fribourg 1700, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Gregor Rainer
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Experimental setup. A, The approximate times of divergence for the three taxonomic orders studied (Springer et al., 2003). B, Rats and tree shrew training took place in an identical test chamber, where a nose poke interrupted a photocell indicating a response. The same stimulus/response panel was used for the monkeys, except they were seated in a primate chair and used their hand to make a response. C, The stimulus configuration consisted of a flickering (15 Hz) target and two constantly illuminated distractors. Initially, in the high-contrast condition, the luminance of the distractors was much lower than that of the target. Following acquisition, animals were transferred to progressively more difficult contrast conditions until they received final training in the minimum-contrast condition. Note that the luminance of the target never changed.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Learning dynamics. A, To facilitate visual comparison between species, we calculated the discounted performance (see text). The results for a representative animal from each species is shown for the four contrast conditions used. The shading of the markers denotes contrast condition. Note, only rats received training in the intermediate-contrast condition. B, The nondiscounted learning curves for the same animals, except the humans, are shown for the four contrast conditions. The slopes of the linear regression lines plotted in B provide a measure of learning rate.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Behavioral performance. A, Mean performance over the first 5 d of training for all species shown. Initially, all species are at a similar level of performance and begin to diverge on day 3. At day 5, the monkeys and tree shrews are still equivalent, while the rats have fallen behind. B, We calculated the maximum performance for each condition by averaging the best 3 d for each animal for that condition. Asterisks denotes significance (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ****p < 0.001). C, To quantify transfer, we compared the mean of the final three sessions of the prior contrast condition to the first three sessions of the subsequent contrast condition. Mean and SEM performance values are shown for a representative animal of each species. The pie charts illustrate the number of cases of transfer observed in that species, i.e., the number of transfer conditions multiplied by the number of subjects for each species. For statistics and description of transfer conditions, see text.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Behavioral strategy. A, The spatial bias index (see text) for the three species is shown for the three contrast conditions. B, The probability of remaining at the three response locations following a reward, or following no reward is shown for each species and training stage. C, The mean values for win stay and lose stay for the center position over the different contrast conditions are shown. D, Ratio of win stay/lose stay (WS/LS) versus behavioral performance at the center position for each of the species. Only for rats is WS/LS ratio correlated with behavioral performance, suggesting that they are able to sustain good behavioral performance using reward to counteract their spatial bias against the center nose poke.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Transfer learning statistics

    CaseM1(SEM)M2 (SEM)T1 (df = 2)T2 (df = 2)p1p2
    M1 H-L91 (2.9)68 (3.4)41.221.60.0006*0.002*
    M2 H-L83 (0.8)54 (5)14.78.70.004*0.01*
    M1 L-M81 (2.5)48 (1.9)68.716.90.0002*0.003*
    M2 L-M77 (1.8)59 (4.7)8120.01*0.007*
    TS1 H-L82 (7)50 (4.12)6.28.70.02*0.01*
    TS2 H-L79 (7.3)71 (2.6)2.931.50.10.001*
    TS3 H-L82 (8.7)61 (3.5)7.616.90.01*0.003*
    TS4 H-L81 (4.3)48 (4.2)14.87.70.004*0.01*
    TS5 H-L85 (4.9)42 (0.3)19.369.80.002*0.0002*
    TS6 H-L82 (1.1)52 (4.1)18.69.60.003*0. 01*
    TS1 L-M46 (2.5)61 (2.1)-10.428.50.009*0.001*
    TS2 L-M76 (3)56 (4.4)27.811.30.001*0.007*
    TS3 L-M78 (3.8)66 (0.8)5.782.70.03*0.0001*
    TS4 L-M65 (4.9)64 (5.6)0.211.90.90.007*
    TS5 L-M63 (3.6)64 (1.2)-0.43)54.20.70.0003*
    TS6 L-M79 (3.8)72 (4.6)1.817.70.20.003*
    R1 H-I67 (2)54 (10.7)3.14.20.090.053
    R2 H-I75 (2.9)74 (3.2)0.2227.60.810.001*
    R3 H-I74 (3.2)53 (12.3)2.93.50.10.07
    R4 H-I63 (8)43 (1.15)4.6220.04*0.002*
    R1 I-L82 (2.6)44 (4.8)13.45.00.005*0.03*
    R2 I-L74 (5.9)47 (2.2)7.213.90.02*0.005*
    R3 I-L70 (8)53 (5.2)6.17.90.03*0.015*
    R4 I-L76 (5.2)57 (5.4)59.40.04*0.01*
    R1 L-M52 (0.5)31 (3.4)11.2-10.008*0.4
    R2 L-M46 (2.8)30 (3.5)7-1.80.02*0.2
    R3 L-M49 (5.2)29 (5.13)4.1-1.60.0560.2
    R4 L-M58 (6.8)36 (2.1)9.33.10.01*0.09
    • The mean behavioral performance pre- and post-transfer (M1,M2) and related SEM values are shown for all transfer cases for each individual animal of all three species (M, monkey; TS, tree shrew; R, rat) and transfer condition (H, high contrast; I, intermediate contrast; L, low contrast; M, minimal contrast); i.e., row TS4 H-L provides information on tree shrew 4 on the transfer from high- to low-contrast condition. Statistics for paired t tests are shown for t test T1, testing M1 against M2, as well as t test T2, testing M2 against chance performance (33%). Triangles denote transfer type (compare Fig. 3C), with full, partial, and no transfer denoted by purple, yellow, and gray, respectively.

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 5 (4)
eNeuro
Vol. 5, Issue 4
July/August 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Divergent Solutions to Visual Problem Solving across Mammalian Species
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Divergent Solutions to Visual Problem Solving across Mammalian Species
Faiz Mustafar, Michael A. Harvey, Abbas Khani, József Arató, Gregor Rainer
eNeuro 9 July 2018, 5 (4) ENEURO.0167-18.2018; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0167-18.2018

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Divergent Solutions to Visual Problem Solving across Mammalian Species
Faiz Mustafar, Michael A. Harvey, Abbas Khani, József Arató, Gregor Rainer
eNeuro 9 July 2018, 5 (4) ENEURO.0167-18.2018; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0167-18.2018
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • behavior
  • Comparative Learning
  • monkey
  • operant conditioning
  • tree shrew
  • vision

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

New Research

  • Brain FNDC5/irisin expression in patients and mouse models of major depression
  • Microglia maintain homeostatic conditions in the developing rostral migratory stream
  • Similar presynaptic action potential-calcium influx coupling in two types of large mossy fiber terminals innervating CA3 pyramidal cells and hilar mossy cells
Show more New Research

Cognition and Behavior

  • Cardiac and gastric interoceptive awareness have distinct neural substrates
  • Opponent Learning with Different Representations in the Cortico-Basal Ganglia Circuits
  • Goal-directed action is transiently impaired in a hAPP-J20 mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease
Show more Cognition and Behavior

Subjects

  • Cognition and Behavior

  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.