MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4280632445 · doi:10.1101/2022.05.18.492296

3D flightpaths reveal the development of spatial memory in wild hummingbirds

2022· preprint· en· W4280632445 on OpenAlexaff
David J. Pritchard, T. Andrew Hurly, Theoni Photopoulou, Susan D. Healy

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHummingbirdArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceCognitive psychologyGeographyCommunicationCartographyPsychologyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Many animals learn to relocate important places and reflect this spatial knowledge in their behaviour. Traditionally evidence for learning is examined experimentally by studying spatial memory. However, tools developed for analysing tracking data from widely ranging animals allow a more holistic analysis of behaviour. Here we use the two together in novel combination of experimental and modelling approaches to analyse how patterns of hummingbird movements change as birds learn to find a reward in a location indicated by a pair of landmarks. Using hidden Markov models (HMMs) we identified two movement states which we interpret as Search and Travel and compared these to experimental behavioural measures of spatial memory. When birds had a single training trial to learn a flower’s location, both the behavioural measures and HMMs showed that hummingbirds relied on landmarks to guide search. Hummingbirds focussed hovering around the rewarded location and were more likely to be in the Search state, and more likely to switch from Travel to Search, when closer to the rewarded location, but only when the landmarks were present. When birds had had 12 additional training trials, however, the HMMs and behavioural measures showed differences in how reliant birds were on landmarks. While behaviours like hovering were still strongly affected by removing landmarks, the likelihood of being in or entered the Search state was the same regardless of whether the landmarks were present or removed. These results suggests that hummingbirds rapidly learn to use nearby landmarks to structure where they search, but as birds gain experience the role of these landmarks changes. While familiar local landmarks were still essential for precise search, experienced birds were able to use alternative cues to guide broad-scale transitions between behaviour. HMMs and traditional behavioural measures each capture a different aspect of this learning, with neither approach alone accurately described the role of landmarks in spatial learning.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction→French-language works237,207→