PSY2304 Biological Basis of Behaviour Lecture 8: Problem Solving & Insight PDF

Lecture 8Problem Solving & InsightPSY2304Biological Basis of BehaviourTo h e a r t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n a s y o u g o t h r o u g h t h e s l i d e s , p l e a s e g o t o t h e S l i d e S h o w m e n u and click on “play from start”. You can also start from...

Lecture 8Problem Solving & InsightPSY2304Biological Basis of BehaviourTo h e a r t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n a s y o u g o t h r o u g h t h e s l i d e s , p l e a s e g o t o t h e S l i d e S h o w m e n u and click on “play from start”. You can also start from the slide you are on using “play from current slide”. If you want subtitles, then click “always use subtitles”. Finally, you can just look at the slides without hearing me by using the up and down arrows after you open it.What I say in this presentation is either on the slides or in the notes that accompany them (see the notes page in PowerPoint on the View menu). Please click on the slide to advance after I’ve finished speaking or use the forward (and back) arrows to navigate. Contents•Historical background•Problem Solving–Trial and Error–Insight–Detour tests–Tool Use Historical BackgroundTwo schools of thoughtgradual (quantitative) difference between humans and other animalsSharp (qualitative) distinction between humans and other animalsEuan MacPhail has a very interesting discussion of this issue in his book: Macphail, E.M. (1982). Brain and Intelligence in Vertebrates. Clarendon Press: Oxford.See also:Macphail, E.M. (1987). The comparative psychology of intelligence. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 10, 645-695. Trial-and-ErrorThorndike–Not insight–Instead postulates Law of Effect Insight–Köhler about Thorndike’s experiments (1927, p.22):“If essential portions of the experimental apparatus cannot be seen by the animals, how can they use their intelligence faculties in tackling the situation?”–Gestalt psychology–Perception of relations–no physical activity involved–if too difficult: trial-and-error The picture can't be displayed. Epstein et al. (1984) Insight? Interim summary–Insight learning evidence often open to interpretation–Köhler –anecdotal, no knowledge of prior experience of animals–Epstein –training experience produced seemingly intelligent and insightful behaviour –an existence proof–Insight vs Instrumental Learning Spatial IntelligenceKöhler (1925)Key feature:distance of food from fenceDetour Tests Spatial IntelligenceDetour TestsS = starting positionF = foodSFShorter pathLonger path–Poucet (1983): Cats –transparent vs opaque barriers. Some animals are able to solve the problem by moving away from the food to take the optimal route to the goal.–Intelligence? Or simply the triumph of the Instrumental over the Pavlovian? Which, as we know, can be difficult to achieve (e.g. omission schedules). Tool Use–the use of an external object as a functional extension to attain an immediate goal–Many animals have been observed engaging in primitive tool use. Indicator of intelligence?–dropping stone on mussel vs. dropping mussel on stone... The picture can't be displayed. Tool use as evidence of causal inference‘To o l’OpenendOpen endPerspex pipeFoodSmall hole and trapPovinelli (2000). Some animals can learn to push from the correct side -Intelligence? Tool selectivity–Chappell & Kacelnik (2002): New Caledonian Crows‘To o l’BoxClosedendOpen endPerspex pipeFood Tool construction–Weir, Chappell & Kacelnik (2002): Tool shaping in New Caledonian Crowshttp://users.ox.ac.uk/~kgroup/tools/tools_main.htmlProbably the best evidence we have. Summary•Do animals show insight? Something beyond trial and error learning that shows that they “understand” the problem?•There are many anecdotal accounts of behaviour that would lead us to answer this question with a “yes!”.•But when we get into the lab, demonstrating this unequivocally has proven difficult. Much more difficult than might be expected if the answer was “yes”. ReadingRequired reading: Pearce, chapters 4 (111-121) , 7 (187-89), and 10 (259-62).References: •Chappell,J&Kacelnik,A(2002).Toolselectivityinanon-primate,theNewCaledoniancrow(Corvusmoneduloides).AnimalCognition5,71-78.•Epstein,R.,Kirshnit,C.E.,Lanza,R.P.&Rubin,L.C.(1984).‘Insight”inthepigeon:antecedentsanddeterminantsofanintelligentperformance.Nature308,61-62.•Köhler(1925/1963).TheMentalityofApes(transWinter,E.).KeganPaulTrench&Trubner.•Povinelli,D.(2000).FolkPhysicsforApes.TheChimpanzee’sTheoryofHowtheWorldWorks.OUP.•Thorndike, E.L. (1998). AnimalIntelligence-An experimental study of the associate processes in animals. American Psychologist, 53 (10):1125-1127 OCT 1998•Weir,A.A.S.,Chappell,J.&Kacelnik,A.(2002).ShapingofhooksinNewCaledoniancrows.Science297,981.