RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 No evidence for cross-contextual consistency in spatial learning and behavioural flexibility in a passerine
JF bioRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
SP 2020.09.04.282566
DO 10.1101/2020.09.04.282566
A1 CA Troisi
A1 AC Cooke
A1 GL Davidson
A1 I de la Hera
A1 MS Reichert
A1 JL Quinn
YR 2020
UL http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/04/2020.09.04.282566.abstract
AB Although the evolution of cognitive differences among species has long been of interest in ecology, whether natural selection acts on cognitive processes within populations has only begun to receive similar attention. One of the key challenges is to understand how consistently cognitive traits within any one domain are expressed over time and across different contexts, as this has direct implications for the way in which selection might act on this variation. Animal studies typically measure a cognitive domain using only one task in one context, and assume that this captures the likely expression of that domain in different contexts. This deficit is not surprising because, from an ecologist’s perspective, cognitive tasks are notoriously laborious to employ, and for design reasons most tasks can only be deployed in a specific context. Thus our knowledge of whether individual differences in cognitive abilities are consistent across contexts is limited. Using a wild population of great tits (Parus major) we characterised consistency of two cognitive abilities, each in two different contexts: 1) spatial learning at two different spatial scales, and 2) behavioural flexibility as both performance in a detour reaching task and reversal learning in a spatial task. We found no evidence of a correlation between the two spatial learning speeds, or between the two measures of behavioural flexibility. This suggests that cognitive performance is highly plastic and sensitive to differences across tasks, or that variants of these well-known tasks may tap into different combinations of both cognitive and non-cognitive mechanisms, or that they simply do not adequately measure each putative cognitive domain. Our results highlight the challenges of developing standardised cognitive assays to explain natural behaviour and to understand the selective consequences of that variation.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.