Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Animal Cognition
- The Cambridge Handbook of Animal Cognition
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures, Tables, and Boxes
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I Communication and Language
- Part II Memory and Recall
- Part III Social Cognition
- Part IV Social Learning and Teaching
- Part V Numerical and Quantitative Abilities
- 24 Numerical and Quantitative Abilities Overview
- 25 Numerical Competence in Fish
- 26 Spatial–Numerical Association in Nonhuman Animals
- 27 Perceptual Categorization in Pigeons
- Part VI Innovation and Problem-Solving
- Index
- References
24 - Numerical and Quantitative Abilities Overview
from Part V - Numerical and Quantitative Abilities
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 July 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Animal Cognition
- The Cambridge Handbook of Animal Cognition
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures, Tables, and Boxes
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I Communication and Language
- Part II Memory and Recall
- Part III Social Cognition
- Part IV Social Learning and Teaching
- Part V Numerical and Quantitative Abilities
- 24 Numerical and Quantitative Abilities Overview
- 25 Numerical Competence in Fish
- 26 Spatial–Numerical Association in Nonhuman Animals
- 27 Perceptual Categorization in Pigeons
- Part VI Innovation and Problem-Solving
- Index
- References
Summary
The study of numerical capacities in animals has a long and colorful history, and has enjoyed a resurgence of intriguing experiments in recent years, exploring a variety of species outside the use of more typical laboratory species, including nonhuman primates, in the past two decades.A wealth of new studies has been forthcoming, including a significant number of well-controlled experiments with fish, and have examined the contribution of group size, movement, species, and sex of fish, surface area of aggregated conspecifics, number vs. continuous quantity, and the development of quantity-discrimination skills.Most such skills appear to be within the capacity of certain fish species, and these studies have also been expanded to include other amphibians, such as salamanders, frogs, and toads.Additional studies have been extended to canid populations not previously examined for numerical skills, including feral dogs, coyotes, and wolves.While much of the last thirty years of experiments with more complex numerical skills in animals were conducted with chimpanzees, more recent studies with monkeys and continued comparisons with chimpanzees have established a host of demonstrated skills in the archival literature.The area of quantity discriminations, numerosity, and numerical skills remains an exciting and vibrant area for future experimental work in comparative cognition.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Animal Cognition , pp. 561 - 579Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Agrillo, C. & Petrazzini, M. E. M. (2021). Numerical competence in fish. In Kaufmann, A. B., Call, J., & Kaufmann, J. C. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Animal Cognition (pp. 580–601). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Agrillo, C., Dadda, M., Serena, G., & Bisazza, A. (2008). Do fish count? Spontaneous discrimination of quantity in female mosquitofish. Animal Cognition, 11, 495–503.Google Scholar
Agrillo, C. & Bisazza, A. (2014). Spontaneous versus trained numerical abilities. A comparison between two main tools to study numerical competence in non-human animals. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 234, 82–91.Google Scholar
Agrillo, C., Petrazzini, M. E. M., & Bisazza, A. (2014). Numerical acuity of fish is improved in the presence of moving targets, but only in the subitizing range. Animal Cognition, 17, 307–316.Google Scholar
Alston, L. & Humphreys, G. W. (2004). Subitization and attentional engagement by transient stimuli. Spatial Vision, 17, 17–50.Google Scholar
Baker, J. M. Shivik, J., & Jordan, K. (2011). Tracking of food quantity by coyotes (Canis latrans). Behavioural Processes, 88, 72–75.Google Scholar
Baker, J. M., Morath, J., Rodson, K. S., & Jordan, K. (2012). A shared system of representation governing quantity discrimination in canids. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–6.Google Scholar
Bensky, M. K., Gosling, S. D., & Sinn, D. L. (2013). The world from a dog’s point of view: A review and synthesis of dog cognition research. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 45, 209–406.Google Scholar
Beran, M. J. (2001). Summation and numerousness judgments of sequentially presented sets of items by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115(2), 181–191.Google Scholar
Beran, M. J. (2004). Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) respond to non visible sets after one-by-one addition and subtraction of items. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 118, 25–36.Google Scholar
Beran, M. J. (2007). Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) enumerate large and small sequentially presented sets of items using analog, numerical representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 33, 55–63.Google ScholarPubMed
Beran, M. J. (2008). Monkeys (Macaca mulatta and Cebus apella) track, enumerate, and compare multiple sets of moving items. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 34, 63–74.Google Scholar
Beran, M. J. (2010). Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) accurately compare poured liquid quantities. Animal Cognition, 13, 641–649.Google Scholar
Beran, M. J. (2012). Quantity judgments of auditory and visual stimuli by chimpanzees. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Animal Behavior Processes, 38, 23–29.Google Scholar
Beran, M. J. & Beran, M. M. (2004). Chimpanzees remember the results of one-by-one addition of food items to sets over extended periods of time. Psychological Science, 15, 94–99. 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01502004.xGoogle Scholar
Beran, M. J., Evans, T. A., & Harris, E. H. (2008). Perception of food amounts by chimpanzees based on the number, size, contour length and visibility of items. Animal Behaviour, 75, 1793–1802.Google Scholar
Beran, M. J. & Parrish, A. E. (2016). Going for More: Discrete and Continuous Quantity Judgments by Nonhuman Animals. In Henik, A (Ed.), Continuous Issues in Numerical Cognition (pp. 175–192). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Beran, M. J., James, B. T., Whitman, W., & Parrish, A. E. (2016). Chimpanzees can point to smaller amounts of food to accumulate larger amounts but they still fail the reverse-reward contingency task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning & Cognition, 42, 347–358.Google Scholar
Bonnani, R., Natoli, E., Cafazzo, S., & Valsecchi, P. (2011). Free-ranging dogs assess the quantity of opponents in intergroup conflicts. Animal Cognition, 14, 103–115.Google Scholar
Boysen, S. T. & Berntson, G. G. (1989). Numerical competence in a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 103, 23–31.Google Scholar
Boysen, S. T. & Berntson, G. G. (1995). Quantity judgments: Perceptual vs. cognitive mechanisms in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 21, 82–86.Google Scholar
Boysen, S. T., Mukobi, K. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1999). Overcoming response-bias using symbolic representation of number by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Animal Learning & Behavior, 27, 229–235.Google Scholar
Boysen, S. T., Berntson, G. G., & Mukobi, K. L. (2001). Size matters: The impact of item size and quantity on array choice by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115(1), (106–110).Google Scholar
Ditz, H. M. & Nieder, A. (2015). Neurons selective to the number of visual items in the corvid songbird endbrain. PNAS, 112, 7827–7832.Google Scholar
Cantlon, J. F. & Brannon, E. M. (2006). Shared system for ordering small and larger numbers in monkeys and humans. Psychological Science, 17, 402–407.Google Scholar
Cantlon, J. F. & Brannon, E. M. (2007) How much does number matter to a monkey (Mucaca mulatta)? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 33, 32–41. 10;1037/0097-77403.33.1.32Google Scholar
Cantlon, J. F., Merritt, D. J., & Brannon, E. M. (2016). Monkeys display classic signatures of human symbolic arithmetic. Animal Cognition, 19, 405–415.Google Scholar
Davis, H. & Pérusse, R. (1988). Numerical competence in animals: Definitional issues, current evidence, and a new research agenda. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 11, 561–615.Google Scholar
Ditz, H. & Nieder, A. (2015). Neurons selective to the number of visual items in the corvidsongbird endbrain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 7827–7832.Google Scholar
Drucker, C. B. & Brannon, E. M. (2014). Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) map number onto space. Cognition, 132, 57–67.Google Scholar
Feigenson, L., Dehaene, S., & Spelke, E. (2004). Core systems of numbers. Trends in Cognitive Science, 8, 307–314.Google Scholar
Gallistel, C. R. & Gelman, R. (2000). Non-verbal numerical cognition: From reals to integers. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 59–65.Google Scholar
Gese, E. M. (2001). Territorial defense by coyotes (Canis latrans) in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming: Who, how, where, when and why. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 79, 980–987.Google Scholar
Gomez-Laplaza, L. M. & Gerlai, R. (2011). Can angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare) count? Discrimination between different shoal sizes follows Weber’s Law. Animal Cognition, 14, 1–9.Google Scholar
Hanus, D. & Call, J. (2007). Discrete quantity judgments in the great apes (Pan paniscus, Pan troglodytes, Gorilla gorilla, Pongo pgymaeus): The effect of presenting whole sets versus item-by-item. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121, 241–249.Google Scholar
Johnson-Ulrich, Z. & Vonk, J. (2018). Spatial representation of magnitude in humans (Homo sapiens), Western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla), and American black bears (Ursus americanus). Animal Cognition, 21, 531–550.Google Scholar
Kitchen, D. M. (2004). Alpha male black howler monkeys’ responses to loud calls: Effect of numeric odds, male companion behaviour and reproductive investment. Animal Behaviour, 67, 125–139.Google Scholar
Krusche, P., Uller, C., & Dicke, U. (2010). Quantity discrimination in salamanders. Journal of Experimental Biology, 213, 1822–1828Google Scholar
Lucon-Xiccato, T., Gatto, E., & Bisazza, A. (2018). Quantity discrimination by treefrogs. Animal Behaviour, 139, 61–69. doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2018.03.005Google Scholar
MacDonald, D. W. & Carr, G. M. (1995). Variation in Dog Society: Between Resource Dispersion and Social Flux. In Serpell, J. (Ed.), The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People (pp. 199–216). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mehlis, M., Thünken, T., Bakker, T. C. M., & Frommen, J. G. (2015). Quantification acuity in spontaneous shoaling decisions of three-spined sticklebacks. Animal Cognition, 18, 1125–1131.Google Scholar
Moll, F. W. & Nieder, A. (2014). The long and short of it: Rule-based relative length discrimination in carrion crows (Corvus corone). Behavioural Processes, 107, 142–149.Google Scholar
Mou, Y. & van Marle, K. (2014). Two core systems of numerical representation in infants. Developmental Review, 34, 1–25.Google Scholar
Nieder, A. (2013). Coding of abstract quantity by “number neurons” of the primate brain. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 199, 1–16.Google Scholar
Parrish, A. E., James, B. T., & Beran, M. J. (2017). Exploring whether nonhuman primates show a bias to overestimate dense quantities. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 131, 59–68.Google Scholar
Pepperberg, I. M. (2014). Further evidence for addition and numerical competence by a Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus). Animal Cognition, 15, 711–717.Google Scholar
Petrazzini, M. E. M., Agrillo, C., Izard, V., & Bisazza, A. (2016). Do humans (Homo sapiens) and fish (Pterophyllum scalare) make similar numerosity judgments? Journal of Comparative Psychology, 130, 380–390.Google Scholar
Rose, G. J. (2018). The numerical abilities of anurans and their neural correlates: Insights from neuroethological studies of acoustic communication. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 373, 20160512.Google Scholar
Rugani, R., Vallortigara, G., Konstantinos, P., & Regolin, L. (2015). Number-space mapping in the newborn chick resembles humans’ mental number line. Science, 30, 534–536.Google Scholar
Rugani, R. & Rosa-Salva, O. (2021). Spatial -numerical association in nonhuman animals. In Kaufmann, A. B., Call, J., & Kaufmann, J. C. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Animal Cognition (pp. 602–620). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rumbaugh, D. M., Savage-Rumbaugh, S., & Hegel, M. T. (1987). Summation in the chimpanzee. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behaviour Processes, 13, 107–115. doi.org/10.1037.0097-7403.13.2.107Google Scholar
Sillero-Zubiri, C. & Macdonald, D. W. (1998). Scent marking and territorial behaviour of Ethiopian wolves (Canis simensis). Journal of Zoology, 245, 351–361. doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1998.tb00110.xGoogle Scholar
Stancher, G., Rugani, R., Regolin, L., & Vallortigara, G. (2015). Numerical discrimination by frogs (Bombina orientalis). Animal Cognition, 18, 219–229.Google Scholar
Suller, C., Jaeger, R., Guidry, G., & Martin, C. (2003). Salamanders (Plethodon cinereus) go for more: Rudiments of number in a species of basal vertebrate. Animal Cognition, 6, 105–112.Google Scholar
Utrata, E., Virányi, Z. & Range, Fr. (2012). Quantity discrimination in wolves (Canis lupus). Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–9.Google Scholar
Vonk, J. (2014). Quantity matching by an orangutan (Pongo abelii). Animal Cognition, 17, 297–306.Google Scholar
Vonk, J. & Beran, M.J. (2012). Bears count, too: Quantity estimation in black bears (Ursus americanus). Animal Behaviour, 84, 231–238.Google Scholar
Vonk, J., Torgerson-White, L., McGuire, M., Thueme, M., Thomas, J., & Beran, M. J. (2014). Quantity estimation and comparison in western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla). Animal Cognition, 17, 755–765. doi.org/10.1007/s1007-013-0707-yGoogle Scholar
West, R. E. & Young, R. J. (2002). Do domestic dogs show any evidence of being able to count? Animal Cognition, 5, 183–186.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by