Skip to main content
Log in

Specialised use of working memory by Portia africana, a spider-eating salticid

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

Abstract

Using expectancy–violation methods, we investigated the role of working memory in the predatory strategy of Portia africana, a salticid spider from Kenya that preys by preference on other spiders. One of this predator’s tactics is to launch opportunistic leaping attacks on to other spiders in their webs. Focussing on this particular tactic, our experiments began with a test spider on a ramp facing a lure (dead prey spider mounted on a cork disc) that could be reached by leaping. After the test spider faced the lure for 30 s, we blocked the test spider’s view of the lure by lowering an opaque shutter before the spider leapt. When the shutter was raised 90 s later, either the same lure came into view again (control) or a different lure came into view (experimental: different prey type in same orientation or same prey type in different orientation). We recorded attack frequency (number of test spiders that leapt at the lure) and attack latency (time elapsing between shutter being raised and spiders initiating a leap). Attack latencies in control trials were not significantly different from attack latencies in experimental trials, regardless of whether it was prey type or prey orientation that changed in the experimental trials. However, compared with test spiders in the no-change control trials, significantly fewer test spiders leapt when prey type changed. There was no significant effect on attack frequency when prey orientation changed. These findings suggest that this predator represents prey type independently of prey orientation.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baddeley A (2012) Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. Annu Rev Psychol 63:1–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown MF, Sayde JM (2013) Same/different discrimination by bumblebee colonies. Anim Cogn 16:117–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burge T (2010) Origins of objectivity. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Collett TS (1982) Do toads plan routes? A study of the detour behavior of Bufo viridis. J Comp Physiol 146:261–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross FR, Jackson RR (2009) Cross-modality priming of visual and olfactory selective attention by a spider that feeds indirectly on vertebrate blood. J Exp Biol 212:1869–1875

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cross FR, Jackson RR (2010a) Olfactory search-image use by a mosquito-eating predator. Proc R Soc Lond B 277:3173–3178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross FR, Jackson RR (2010b) The attentive spider: search-image use by a mosquito-eating predator. Ethology 116:240–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross FR, Jackson RR, Pollard SD (2008) Complex display behaviour of Evarcha culicivora, an East African mosquito-eating jumping spider. N Z J Zool 35:151–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curio E (1976) The ethology of predation. Springer-Verlag, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Delius JD, Hollard VD (1995) Orientation invariant pattern recognition by pigeons (Columba livia) and humans (Homo sapiens). J Comp Psychol 109:278–290

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dennett DC (1996) Kinds of minds: towards an understanding of consciousness. Simon and Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein R (1982) Representation: a concept that fills no gaps. Behav Brain Sci 5:377–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallistel CR (1989) Animal cognition: the representation of space, time and number. Annu Rev Psychol 40:155–189

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gallistel CR (1990) Representations in animal cognition: an introduction. Cognition 37:1–22

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Giurfa M, Zhang S, Jenett A, Menzel R, Srinivasan MV (2001) The concepts of ‘sameness’ and ‘difference’ in an insect. Nature 410:930–933

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez J-C (2005) Species comparative studies and cognitive development. Trends Cogn Sci 9:118–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harland DP, Li D, Jackson RR (2012) How jumping spiders see the world. In: Lazareva O, Shimizu T, Wasserman EA (eds) How animals see the world: comparative behavior, biology, and evolution of vision. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 133–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser MD, MacNeilage P, Ware M (1996) Numerical representations in primates. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:1514–1517

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Howell DC (2002) Statistical methods for psychology, 5th edn. Wadsworth, Belmont

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson RR, Cross FR (2011) Spider cognition. Adv Insect Physiol 41:115–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson RR, Pollard SD (1996) Predatory behavior of jumping spiders. Annu Rev Entomol 41:287–308

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson RR, Clark RJ, Harland DP (2002) Behavioural and cognitive influences of kairomones on an araneophagic jumping spider. Behaviour 139:749–775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jakob EM, Skow CD, Long S (2011) Plasticity, learning and cognition. In: Herberstein ME (ed) Spider behaviour: flexibility and versatility. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 307–347

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kamil AC, Bond AB (2006) Selective attention, priming, and foraging behavior. In: Wasserman EA, Zentall TR (eds) Comparative cognition: experimental explorations of animal intelligence. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 106–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosslyn SM, Ganis G, Thompson WL (2003) Mental imagery: against the nihilistic hypothesis. Trends Cogn Sci 7:109–111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Land MF, Nilsson D-E (2012) Animal eyes, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Markman AB, Dietrich E (2000) In defense of representation. Cognit Psychol 40:138–171

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maunsell JHR (1995) The brain’s visual world: representation of visual targets in cerebral cortex. Science 270:764–768

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Neiworth JJ, Rilling ME (1987) A method for studying imagery in animals. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 13:203–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer SE (1999) Vision science: photons to phenomenology. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Peissig JJ, Goode T (2012) The recognition of rotated objects in animals. In: Lazareva O, Shimizu T, Wasserman EA (eds) How animals see the world: comparative behavior, biology, and evolution of vision. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 233–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Pepperberg IM (2002) The value of the Piagetian framework for comparative cognitive studies. Anim Cogn 5:177–182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pepperberg IM, Kozak FA (1986) Object permanence in the African grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus). Anim Learn Behav 14:322–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pylyshyn ZW (2003a) Explaining mental imagery: now you see it, now you don’t. Trends Cogn Sci 7:111–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pylyshyn ZW (2003b) Return of the mental image: are there really pictures in the brain? Trends Cogn Sci 7:113–118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts WA, Feeney MC (2009) The comparative study of mental time travel. Trends Cogn Sci 13:271–277

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scharff N, Coddington JA (1997) A phylogenetic analysis of the orb-weaving spider family Araneidae (Arachnida, Araneae). Zool J Linn Soc 120:355–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepard RN, Metzler J (1971) Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science 171:701–703

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shettleworth SJ (2010) Cognition, evolution, and behavior, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarsitano M, Andrew R (1999) Scanning and route selection in the jumping spider Portia labiata. Anim Behav 58:255–265

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tarsitano MS, Jackson RR (1997) Araneophagic jumping spiders discriminate between detour routes that do and do not lead to prey. Anim Behav 53:257–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehouse M (2011) Kleptoparasitic spiders of the subfamily Argyrodinae: a special case of behavioural plasticity. In: Herberstein ME (ed) Spider behaviour: flexibility and versatility. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 348–386

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wynn K (1992) Addition and subtraction by human infants. Nature 358:749–750

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Stephene Abok Aluoch, Godfrey Otieno Sune and Jane Atieno Obonyo for their assistance at ICIPE. We are grateful to G. B. Edwards (Florida State Collection of Arthropods, Gainsville, Florida), Ansie Dippenaar-Schoeman (ARC–Plant Protection Research Institute, Pretoria) and Charles Warui (National Museums of Kenya) for their help with spider taxonomy. We also gratefully acknowledge support of grants from the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology (UOCX0903), the Royal Society of New Zealand (Marsden Fund (M1096, M1079) and James Cook Fellowship (E5097)), the National Geographic Society (8676–09, 6705–00) and the US National Institutes of Health (R01-AI077722).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fiona R. Cross.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cross, F.R., Jackson, R.R. Specialised use of working memory by Portia africana, a spider-eating salticid. Anim Cogn 17, 435–444 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-013-0675-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-013-0675-2

Keywords

Navigation