The ephemeral reward task: Pigeons and rats fail to learn unless discouraged from impulsive choice

A marine cleaning mutualism provides new insights in biological market dynamics

Most mutually beneficial social interactions (cooperation within species, mutualism between species) involve some degree of partner choice. In an analogy to economic theory as applied to human trading practices, biological market theory (BMT) focuses on how partner choice affects payoff distributions among non-human traders. BMT has inspired a great diversity of research, including research on the mutualism between cleaner fish Labroides dimidiatus and other marine fish, their 'clients'. In this mutualism, clients have ectoparasites removed and cleaners obtain food in return. We use the available data on L. dimidiatus cleaner-client interactions to identify avenues for future expansion of BMT. We focus on three main topics, namely how partner quality interacts with supply-to-demand ratios to affect service quality, the role of threats and forms of forceful intervention, and the potential role of cognition. We consider it essential to identify the specifics of each biological market as a basis for the development of more sophisticated BMT models. This article is part of the theme issue 'Half a century of evolutionary games: a synthesis of theory, application and future directions'.

Comparative performance of orangutans (Pongo spp.), gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla), and drills (Mandrillus leucophaeus), in an ephemeral foraging task

A goal of the comparative approach is to test a variety of species on the same task. Here, we examined whether the factors that helped capuchin monkeys improve their performance in a dichotomous choice task would generalize to three other primate species: orangutans, gorillas, and drill monkeys. In this task, subjects have access to two options, each resulting in an identical food, but one (the ephemeral option) is only available if it is chosen first, whereas the other one (the permanent option) is always available. Therefore, the food-maximizing solution is to choose the ephemeral option first, followed by the permanent option for an additional reward. On the original version (plate task), the options were discriminated by the color and pattern of the plates holding the food, while on two subsequent versions we used altered cues that we predicted would improve performance: (1) the color of the foods themselves (color task), which we hypothesized was relevant to primates, who choose foods rather than substrates on which foods are found when foraging, and (2) patterned cups covering the foods (cup task), which we hypothesized would help primates avoid the prepotent response associated with visible food. Like capuchins, all three species initially failed to solve the plate task. However, while orangutans improved their performance from the plate to the color task, they did not for the cup task, and only a few gorillas and no drills succeeded in either task. Unfortunately, our ability to interpret these data was obscured by differences in the subjects' level of experience with cognitive testing and practical constraints that precluded the use of completely identical procedures across species. Nonetheless, we consider what these results can tell us, and discuss the value of conducting studies across multiple sites despite unavoidable differences.

Ecological differences in the facultative Caribbean cleaning goby Elacatinus prochilos do not predict learning performance in discriminatory two-choice tasks

The ecological approach to comparative cognition emphasizes that the ecological and social environment are important predictors of cognitive performance. We used this approach to test whether differences in habitat use and social behavior in the facultative Caribbean cleaning goby Elacatinus prochilos predict differences in learning performance in two discriminatory two-choice tasks. This species has two behavioral ecotypes: one that frequently engages in cleaning interactions and inhabits corals in male-female pairs (cleaning gobies) and another that rarely engages in cleaning interactions and inhabits barrel sponges in large groups (sponge-dwellers). We predicted that cleaning gobies would outperform sponge-dwellers in a pattern-cued task, which consisted of identifying the pattern on a plate that consistently provided food, while sponge-dwellers would outperform cleaning gobies in a spatial task, which consisted of identifying the location of the plate. Contrary to our predictions, there was no difference in performance between the two ecotypes. Most of the gobies performed poorly in the pattern-cued task and well in the spatial task. A possible explanation for these results is that the association of a pattern with positive and negative reinforcement may not be a pre-requisite for engaging in cleaning interactions, while spatial skills might be equally required in both ecotypes. Alternatively, the two ecotypes can flexibly adjust to new feeding conditions, which would explain their similar performance in the spatial task. Further research should investigate which aspects of E. prochilos' social and ecological environment might impose challenges that require spatial cognition and whether individuals can flexibly adjust to new habitats and feeding conditions.