Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Spontaneous discrimination of small quantities: shoaling preferences in angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare)

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Animal Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The ability to quantify, i.e. to estimate quantity, may provide evolutionary advantages in some contexts and has been demonstrated in a variety of animal species. In a prior study, we showed that angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare) were able to discriminate between groups (shoals) in which a large number of conspecifics swam preferring to join the larger of the two. Our results implied that angelfish can compare relative shoal sizes likely on the basis of some quantitative attributes of the shoal. Here, also using a binary preference test, we examined whether angelfish are able to discriminate between shoals of small numbers of conspecifics, and if so whether their performance reveals a comparable underlying mechanism to that proposed for discrimination of small quantities in human and non-human animals, namely the possible precursor of the ability to count. Our results demonstrate that fish reliably chose 4 versus 1, 3 versus 1, 2 versus 1 and 3 versus 2 individuals, but were at chance performance level when having to choose between 4 versus 3, 5 versus 4 and 6 versus 5. Findings also reveal that the density of the fish in the stimulus shoals did not significantly affect the performance of experimental angelfish. These results are compatible with the hypothesis of the existence of an object-file mechanism to discriminate small quantities in vertebrates and provide evidence for spontaneous discrimination of up to three elements in angelfish, a similar limit to that found in human and non-human animals. The findings add to the growing body of data, suggesting that the mechanisms underlying discrimination between different quantities of items may be shared across different taxa and have an evolutionary ancient origin.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Addessi E, Crescimbene L, Visalberghi E (2008) Food and token quantity discrimination in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Anim Cogn 11:275–282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Agrillo C, Dadda M (2007) Discrimination of the larger shoal in the poeciliid fish Girardinus falcatus. Ethol Ecol Evol 19:145–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrillo C, Dadda M, Bisazza A (2006) Sexual harassment influences group choice in female mosquitofish. Ethology 112:592–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrillo C, Dadda M, Bisazza A (2007) Quantity discrimination in female mosquitofish. Anim Cogn 10:63–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Agrillo C, Dadda M, Serena G (2008a) Choice of female groups by male mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki). Ethology 118:479–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrillo C, Dadda M, Serena G, Bisazza A (2008b) Do fish count? Spontaneous discrimination of quantity in female mosquitofish. Anim Cogn 11:495–503

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Agrillo C, Dadda M, Serena G, Bisazza A (2009) Use of number by fish. PLoS ONE 4:e4786. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004786

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Al Aïn S, Giret N, Grand M, Kreuitzer M, Bovet D (2009) The discrimination of discrete and continuous amounts in African grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus). Anim Cogn 12:145–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber I, Wright HA (2001) How strong are familiarity preferences in shoaling fish? Anim Behav 61:973–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binoy VV, Thomas KJ (2004) The climbing perch (Anabas testudineus Bloch), a freshwater fish, prefers larger unfamiliar shoals to smaller familiar shoals. Curr Sci 86:207–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Bisazza A, Piffer L, Serena G, Agrillo C (2010) Ontogeny of numerical abilities in fish. PLoS ONE 5:e15516. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015516

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bonanni R, Natoli E, Cafazzo S, Valsecchi P (2011) Free-ranging dogs assess the quantity of opponents in intergroup conflicts. Anim Cogn 14:103–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bradner J, McRobert SP (2001) The effect of shoal size on patterns of body colour segregation in mollies. J Fish Biol 59:960–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckingham JN, Wong BBM, Rosenthal GG (2007) Shoaling decisions in female swordtails: how do fish gauge group size? Behaviour 144:1333–1346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantlon JF, Brannon EM (2006) Shared system for ordering small and large numbers in monkeys and humans. Psycho Sci 17:401–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carazo P, Font E, Forteza-Behrendt E, Desfilis E (2009) Quantity discrimination in Tenebrio molitor: evidence of numerosity discrimination in an invertebrate? Anim Cogn 12:463–470

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clearfield MW, Mix KS (1999) Number versus contour length in infants’ discrimination of small visual sets. Psychol Sci 10:408–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordes S, Brannon EM (2008a) The difficulties of representing continuous extent in infancy: using number is just easier. Child Devel 79:476–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordes S, Brannon EM (2008b) Quantitative competences in infancy. Dev Sci Rev 11:803–808

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordes S, Brannon EM (2009) Crossing the divide: infants discriminate small from large numerosities. Dev Psychol 45:1583–1594

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell W, Quinn JL (2004) Faced with a choice, sparrowhawks more often attack the more vulnerable prey group. Oikos 104:71–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dadda M, Piffer L, Agrillo C, Bisazza A (2009) Spontaneous number representation in mosquitofish. Cognition 122:343–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emmerton J (1998) Numerosity differences and effects of stimulus density on pigeons’ discrimination performance. Anim Learn Behav 26:243–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emmerton J, Renner JC (2006) Scalar effects in the visual discrimination of numerosity by pigeons. Learn Behav 34:176–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Emmerton J, Renner JC (2009) Local rather than global processing of visual arrays in numerosity discrimination by pigeons (Columba livia). Anim Cogn 12:511–526

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feigenson L, Carey S (2003) Tracking individuals via object files: evidence from infants’ manual search task. Develop Sci 6:568–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feigenson L, Carey S (2005) On the limits of infants’ quantification of small object arrays. Cognition 97:295–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feigenson L, Carey S, Hauser MD (2002a) The representations underlying infants’ choice of more: object files vs. analog magnitudes. Psychol Sci 13:150–156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feigenson L, Carey S, Spelke ES (2002b) Infants’ discrimination of number vs. continuous extent. Cogn Psychol 44:33–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feigenson L, Dehaene S, Spelke E (2004) Core systems of number. Trends Cogn Sci 8:307–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frommen JG, Hiermes M, Bakker TCM (2009) Disentangling the effects of group size and density on shoaling decisions of three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63:1141–1148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallistel CR, Gelman R (2000) Non-verbal numerical cognition: from the reals to the integers. Trends Cogn Sci 4:59–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Laplaza LM, Fuente A (2007) Shoaling decisions in angelfish: the roles of social status and familiarity. Ethology 113:847–855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Laplaza LM, Gerlai R (2011) Can angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare) count? Discrimination between different shoal sizes follows Weber’s law. Anim Cogn 14:1–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hager MC, Helfman GS (1991) Safety in numbers: shoal size choice by minnows under predatory threat. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29:271–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halberda J, Mazzocco MM, Feigenson L (2008) Individual differences in non-verbal number acuity correlate with maths achievement. Nature 455:665–668

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hanus D, Call J (2007) Discrete quantity judgments in the great apes (Pan paniscus, Pan troglodytes, Gorilla gorilla, Pongo pygmaeus): the effect of presenting whole sets versus item-by-item. J Comp Psychol 121:241–249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser MD, Carey S (2003) Spontaneous representations of small numbers of objects by rhesus macaques: examinations of content and format. Cogn Psychol 47:367–401

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser MC, Spelke ES (2004) Evolutionary and developmental foundations of human knowledge. In: Gazzaniga M (ed) The cognitive neurosciences III. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 853–864

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser MD, Carey S, Hauser L (2000) Spontaneous number representation in semi-free-ranging rhesus monkeys. Proc R Soc B 267:829–833

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hoare DJ, Couzin ID, Godin J-GJ, Krause J (2004) Context-dependent group size choice in fish. Anim Behav 67:155–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilian A, Yaman S, von Fersen L, Güntürkün O (2003) A bottlenose dolphin discriminates visual stimuli differing in numerosity. Learn Beahv 31:133–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krause J, Ruxton GD (2002) Living in groups. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Krusche P, Uller C, Dicke U (2010) Quantity discrimination in salamanders. J Exp Biol 213:1822–1828

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis KP, Jaffe S, Brannon EM (2005) Analog number representations in mongoose lemurs (Eulemur mongoz): evidence from a search task. Anim Cogn 8:247–252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon BE (2003) Egg recognition and counting reduce costs of avian conspecific brood parasitism. Nature 422:495–499

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Miller N, Gerlai R (2008) Oscillations in shoal cohesion in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Behav Brain Res 193:148–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Odell NS, Eadie JM (2010) Do wood ducks use the quantity of eggs in a nest as a cue to the nest’s value? Behav Ecol 21:794–801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pisa PE, Agrillo C (2009) Quantity discrimination in felines: a preliminary investigation of the domestic cat (Felis silvestris catus). J Ethol 27:289–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitcher TJ, Parrish JK (1993) Functions of shoaling behaviour in teleosts. In: Pitcher TJ (ed) Behaviour of teleost fishes, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 363–439

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard VL, Lawrence J, Butlin RK, Krause J (2001) Shoal choice in zebrafish, Danio rerio: the influence of shoal size and activity. Anim Behav 62:1085–1088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rugani R, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2008) Discrimination of small numerosities in young chicks. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 34:388–399

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rugani R, Fontanari L, Simoni E, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2009) Arithmetic in newborn chicks. Proc R Soc B 276:2451–2460

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Snekser JL, McRobert SP, Clotfelter ED (2006) Social partner preferences of male and female fighting fish (Betta splendens). Behav Proc 72:38–41

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens D, Krebs J (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens JR, Wood J, Hauser MD (2007) When quantity trumps number: discrimination experiments in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) and common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). Anim Cogn 10:429–437

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tegeder RW, Krause J (1995) Density dependence and numerosity in fright stimulated aggregation behaviour of shoaling fish. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 350:381–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trick LM, Pylyshyn ZW (1994) Why are small and large numbers enumerated differently? A limited-capacity preattentive stage in vision. Psychol Rev 101:80–102

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Uller C, Lewis J (2009) Horses (Equus caballus) select the greater of two quantities in small numerical contrasts. Anim Cogn 12:733–738

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Uller C, Jaeger R, Guidry G, Martin C (2003) Salamanders (Plethodon cinereus) go for more: rudiments of number in an amphibian. Anim Cogn 6:105–112

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • vanMarle K, Wynn K (2009) Infants’ auditory enumeration: evidence for analog magnitudes in the small number range. Cognition 111:302–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ward C, Smuts B (2007) Quantity based judgments in the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris). Anim Cogn 10:71–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson ML, Hauser MD, Wrangham RW (2001) Does participation in intergroup conflict depend on numerical assessment, range location, or rank for wild chimpanzees? Anim Behav 61:1203–1216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong BBM, Rosenthal GG (2005) Shoal choice in swordtails when preferences conflict. Ethology 111:179–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood JN, Hauser MD, Glynn DD, Barner D (2008) Free-ranging rhesus monkeys spontaneously individuate and enumerate small numbers of non-solid portions. Cognition 106:207–221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Xu F (2003) Numerosity discrimination in infants: evidence for two systems of representations. Cognition 89:B15–B25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Xu F, Spelke ES, Goddard S (2005) Number sense in human infants. Develop Sci 8:88–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to three anonymous reviewers for their useful comments on the manuscript. This research was supported by grant MICINN-PSI2010-16487 from the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (Spain) and co-funded by FEDER to L.M.G-L., and by a NSERC (Canada) grant to R.G. The experiments described here comply with the current laws of the country (Spain) in which they were performed. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Psicología, Universidad de Oviedo, Plaza de Feijoo s/n, 33003, Oviedo, Spain

    Luis M. Gómez-Laplaza

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Toronto Mississauga, 3359 Mississauga Road North, Mississauga, ON, L5L 1C6, Canada

    Robert Gerlai

Authors
  1. Luis M. Gómez-Laplaza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Gerlai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luis M. Gómez-Laplaza.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gómez-Laplaza, L.M., Gerlai, R. Spontaneous discrimination of small quantities: shoaling preferences in angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare). Anim Cogn 14, 565–574 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-011-0392-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-011-0392-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation