ALBERT

Description: Intra-individual variation in performance within and across cognitive domains may confound interpretations of both domain-general and domain-specific abilities. Such variation is rarely considered in animal test batteries. We investigate individual consistency in performance by presenting pheasant chicks ( n = 31), raised under standardized conditions, with nine different cognitive tasks. Among these tasks were two replicated novel variants of colour learning and colour reversal problems, tests of positional learning and memory, as well as two different tasks that captured multiple putative measures of inhibitory control and motor-related performance. These task variants were also used to compare subjects' performance on alternative test batteries comprised of different task combinations. Subjects’ performance improved with experience, yet we found relatively little consistency in their performance, both within similar tasks using different paradigms and across different tasks. Parallel analysis revealed non-significant factors when all nine tasks were included in a principal axis factor analysis. However, when different combinations of six of the nine tasks were included in principal axis factoring, 14 of 84 combinations revealed significant main factors, explaining between 28 and 35% of the variance in task performance. While comparable findings have been suggested to reflect domain-general intelligence in other species, we found no evidence to suggest that a single factor encompassed a diverse range of cognitive abilities in pheasants. Instead, we reveal how single factor explanations of cognitive processes can be influenced by test battery composition and intra-individual variation in performance across tasks. Our findings highlight the importance of conducting multiple tests within specific domains to ensure robust cognitive measures are obtained.

Description: Dominant individuals differ from subordinates in their performances on cognitive tasks across a suite of taxa. Previous studies often only consider dyadic relationships, rather than the more ecologically relevant social hierarchies or networks, hence failing to account for how dyadic relationships may be adjusted within larger social groups. We used a novel statistical method: randomized Elo-ratings, to infer the social hierarchy of 18 male pheasants, Phasianus colchicus , while in a captive, mixed-sex group with a linear hierarchy. We assayed individual learning performance of these males on a binary spatial discrimination task to investigate whether inter-individual variation in performance is associated with group social rank. Task performance improved with increasing trial number and was positively related to social rank, with higher ranking males showing greater levels of success. Motivation to participate in the task was not related to social rank or task performance, thus indicating that these rank-related differences are not a consequence of differences in motivation to complete the task. Our results provide important information about how variation in cognitive performance relates to an individual's social rank within a group. Whether the social environment causes differences in learning performance or instead, inherent differences in learning ability predetermine rank remains to be tested.

Description: Behavioural and cognitive processes play important roles in mediating an individual's interactions with its environment. Yet, while there is a vast literature on repeatable individual differences in behaviour, relatively little is known about the repeatability of cognitive performance. To further our understanding of the evolution of cognition, we gathered 44 studies on individual performance of 25 species across six animal classes and used meta-analysis to assess whether cognitive performance is repeatable. We compared repeatability ( R ) in performance (1) on the same task presented at different times (temporal repeatability), and (2) on different tasks that measured the same putative cognitive ability (contextual repeatability). We also addressed whether R estimates were influenced by seven extrinsic factors (moderators): type of cognitive performance measurement, type of cognitive task, delay between tests, origin of the subjects, experimental context, taxonomic class and publication status. We found support for both temporal and contextual repeatability of cognitive performance, with mean R estimates ranging between 0.15 and 0.28. Repeatability estimates were mostly influenced by the type of cognitive performance measures and publication status. Our findings highlight the widespread occurrence of consistent inter-individual variation in cognition across a range of taxa which, like behaviour, may be associated with fitness outcomes. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Causes and consequences of individual differences in cognitive abilities’.