Effects of landmark distance and stability on accuracy of reward relocation
Abstract Although small-scale navigation is well studied in a wide range of species, much of what is known about landmark use by vertebrates is based on laboratory experiments. To investigate how vertebrates in the wild use landmarks, we trained wild male rufous hummingbirds to feed from a flower th...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Pritchard, David J. [verfasserIn] Hurly, T. Andrew [verfasserIn] Healy, Susan D. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2015 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Animal Cognition - Springer-Verlag, 1998, 18(2015), 6 vom: 22. Juli, Seite 1285-1297 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:18 ; year:2015 ; number:6 ; day:22 ; month:07 ; pages:1285-1297 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s10071-015-0896-7 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
SPR008576106 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | SPR008576106 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20201124045111.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 201005s2015 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s10071-015-0896-7 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)SPR008576106 | ||
| 035 | |a (SPR)s10071-015-0896-7-e | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Pritchard, David J. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Effects of landmark distance and stability on accuracy of reward relocation |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2015 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract Although small-scale navigation is well studied in a wide range of species, much of what is known about landmark use by vertebrates is based on laboratory experiments. To investigate how vertebrates in the wild use landmarks, we trained wild male rufous hummingbirds to feed from a flower that was placed in a constant spatial relationship with two artificial landmarks. In the first experiment, the landmarks and flower were 0.25, 0.5 or 1 m apart and we always moved them 3–4 m after each visit by the bird. In the second experiment, the landmarks and flower were always 0.25 m apart and we moved them either 1 or 0.25 m between trials. In tests, in which we removed the flower, the hummingbirds stopped closer to the predicted flower location when the landmarks had been closer to the flower during training. However, while the distance that the birds stopped from the landmarks and predicted flower location was unaffected by the distance that the landmarks moved between trials, the birds directed their search nearer to the predicted direction of the flower, relative to the landmarks, when the landmarks and flower were more stable in the environment. In the field, then, landmarks alone were sufficient for the birds to determine the distance of a reward but not its direction. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Navigation |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Landmarks |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Spatial memory |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Spatial cognition |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Orientation |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Hummingbirds |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hurly, T. Andrew |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Healy, Susan D. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Animal Cognition |d Springer-Verlag, 1998 |g 18(2015), 6 vom: 22. Juli, Seite 1285-1297 |w (DE-627)SPR008564442 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:18 |g year:2015 |g number:6 |g day:22 |g month:07 |g pages:1285-1297 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0896-7 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 18 |j 2015 |e 6 |b 22 |c 07 |h 1285-1297 | ||
| author_variant |
d j p dj djp t a h ta tah s d h sd sdh |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
pritcharddavidjhurlytandrewhealysusand:2015----:fetolnmrdsacadtbltoacrco |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2015 |
| publishDate |
2015 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s10071-015-0896-7 doi (DE-627)SPR008576106 (SPR)s10071-015-0896-7-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Pritchard, David J. verfasserin aut Effects of landmark distance and stability on accuracy of reward relocation 2015 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Although small-scale navigation is well studied in a wide range of species, much of what is known about landmark use by vertebrates is based on laboratory experiments. To investigate how vertebrates in the wild use landmarks, we trained wild male rufous hummingbirds to feed from a flower that was placed in a constant spatial relationship with two artificial landmarks. In the first experiment, the landmarks and flower were 0.25, 0.5 or 1 m apart and we always moved them 3–4 m after each visit by the bird. In the second experiment, the landmarks and flower were always 0.25 m apart and we moved them either 1 or 0.25 m between trials. In tests, in which we removed the flower, the hummingbirds stopped closer to the predicted flower location when the landmarks had been closer to the flower during training. However, while the distance that the birds stopped from the landmarks and predicted flower location was unaffected by the distance that the landmarks moved between trials, the birds directed their search nearer to the predicted direction of the flower, relative to the landmarks, when the landmarks and flower were more stable in the environment. In the field, then, landmarks alone were sufficient for the birds to determine the distance of a reward but not its direction. Navigation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Landmarks (dpeaa)DE-He213 Spatial memory (dpeaa)DE-He213 Spatial cognition (dpeaa)DE-He213 Orientation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hummingbirds (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hurly, T. Andrew verfasserin aut Healy, Susan D. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Animal Cognition Springer-Verlag, 1998 18(2015), 6 vom: 22. Juli, Seite 1285-1297 (DE-627)SPR008564442 nnns volume:18 year:2015 number:6 day:22 month:07 pages:1285-1297 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0896-7 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 18 2015 6 22 07 1285-1297 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s10071-015-0896-7 doi (DE-627)SPR008576106 (SPR)s10071-015-0896-7-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Pritchard, David J. verfasserin aut Effects of landmark distance and stability on accuracy of reward relocation 2015 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Although small-scale navigation is well studied in a wide range of species, much of what is known about landmark use by vertebrates is based on laboratory experiments. To investigate how vertebrates in the wild use landmarks, we trained wild male rufous hummingbirds to feed from a flower that was placed in a constant spatial relationship with two artificial landmarks. In the first experiment, the landmarks and flower were 0.25, 0.5 or 1 m apart and we always moved them 3–4 m after each visit by the bird. In the second experiment, the landmarks and flower were always 0.25 m apart and we moved them either 1 or 0.25 m between trials. In tests, in which we removed the flower, the hummingbirds stopped closer to the predicted flower location when the landmarks had been closer to the flower during training. However, while the distance that the birds stopped from the landmarks and predicted flower location was unaffected by the distance that the landmarks moved between trials, the birds directed their search nearer to the predicted direction of the flower, relative to the landmarks, when the landmarks and flower were more stable in the environment. In the field, then, landmarks alone were sufficient for the birds to determine the distance of a reward but not its direction. Navigation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Landmarks (dpeaa)DE-He213 Spatial memory (dpeaa)DE-He213 Spatial cognition (dpeaa)DE-He213 Orientation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hummingbirds (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hurly, T. Andrew verfasserin aut Healy, Susan D. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Animal Cognition Springer-Verlag, 1998 18(2015), 6 vom: 22. Juli, Seite 1285-1297 (DE-627)SPR008564442 nnns volume:18 year:2015 number:6 day:22 month:07 pages:1285-1297 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0896-7 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 18 2015 6 22 07 1285-1297 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s10071-015-0896-7 doi (DE-627)SPR008576106 (SPR)s10071-015-0896-7-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Pritchard, David J. verfasserin aut Effects of landmark distance and stability on accuracy of reward relocation 2015 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Although small-scale navigation is well studied in a wide range of species, much of what is known about landmark use by vertebrates is based on laboratory experiments. To investigate how vertebrates in the wild use landmarks, we trained wild male rufous hummingbirds to feed from a flower that was placed in a constant spatial relationship with two artificial landmarks. In the first experiment, the landmarks and flower were 0.25, 0.5 or 1 m apart and we always moved them 3–4 m after each visit by the bird. In the second experiment, the landmarks and flower were always 0.25 m apart and we moved them either 1 or 0.25 m between trials. In tests, in which we removed the flower, the hummingbirds stopped closer to the predicted flower location when the landmarks had been closer to the flower during training. However, while the distance that the birds stopped from the landmarks and predicted flower location was unaffected by the distance that the landmarks moved between trials, the birds directed their search nearer to the predicted direction of the flower, relative to the landmarks, when the landmarks and flower were more stable in the environment. In the field, then, landmarks alone were sufficient for the birds to determine the distance of a reward but not its direction. Navigation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Landmarks (dpeaa)DE-He213 Spatial memory (dpeaa)DE-He213 Spatial cognition (dpeaa)DE-He213 Orientation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hummingbirds (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hurly, T. Andrew verfasserin aut Healy, Susan D. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Animal Cognition Springer-Verlag, 1998 18(2015), 6 vom: 22. Juli, Seite 1285-1297 (DE-627)SPR008564442 nnns volume:18 year:2015 number:6 day:22 month:07 pages:1285-1297 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0896-7 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 18 2015 6 22 07 1285-1297 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s10071-015-0896-7 doi (DE-627)SPR008576106 (SPR)s10071-015-0896-7-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Pritchard, David J. verfasserin aut Effects of landmark distance and stability on accuracy of reward relocation 2015 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Although small-scale navigation is well studied in a wide range of species, much of what is known about landmark use by vertebrates is based on laboratory experiments. To investigate how vertebrates in the wild use landmarks, we trained wild male rufous hummingbirds to feed from a flower that was placed in a constant spatial relationship with two artificial landmarks. In the first experiment, the landmarks and flower were 0.25, 0.5 or 1 m apart and we always moved them 3–4 m after each visit by the bird. In the second experiment, the landmarks and flower were always 0.25 m apart and we moved them either 1 or 0.25 m between trials. In tests, in which we removed the flower, the hummingbirds stopped closer to the predicted flower location when the landmarks had been closer to the flower during training. However, while the distance that the birds stopped from the landmarks and predicted flower location was unaffected by the distance that the landmarks moved between trials, the birds directed their search nearer to the predicted direction of the flower, relative to the landmarks, when the landmarks and flower were more stable in the environment. In the field, then, landmarks alone were sufficient for the birds to determine the distance of a reward but not its direction. Navigation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Landmarks (dpeaa)DE-He213 Spatial memory (dpeaa)DE-He213 Spatial cognition (dpeaa)DE-He213 Orientation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hummingbirds (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hurly, T. Andrew verfasserin aut Healy, Susan D. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Animal Cognition Springer-Verlag, 1998 18(2015), 6 vom: 22. Juli, Seite 1285-1297 (DE-627)SPR008564442 nnns volume:18 year:2015 number:6 day:22 month:07 pages:1285-1297 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0896-7 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 18 2015 6 22 07 1285-1297 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s10071-015-0896-7 doi (DE-627)SPR008576106 (SPR)s10071-015-0896-7-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Pritchard, David J. verfasserin aut Effects of landmark distance and stability on accuracy of reward relocation 2015 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Although small-scale navigation is well studied in a wide range of species, much of what is known about landmark use by vertebrates is based on laboratory experiments. To investigate how vertebrates in the wild use landmarks, we trained wild male rufous hummingbirds to feed from a flower that was placed in a constant spatial relationship with two artificial landmarks. In the first experiment, the landmarks and flower were 0.25, 0.5 or 1 m apart and we always moved them 3–4 m after each visit by the bird. In the second experiment, the landmarks and flower were always 0.25 m apart and we moved them either 1 or 0.25 m between trials. In tests, in which we removed the flower, the hummingbirds stopped closer to the predicted flower location when the landmarks had been closer to the flower during training. However, while the distance that the birds stopped from the landmarks and predicted flower location was unaffected by the distance that the landmarks moved between trials, the birds directed their search nearer to the predicted direction of the flower, relative to the landmarks, when the landmarks and flower were more stable in the environment. In the field, then, landmarks alone were sufficient for the birds to determine the distance of a reward but not its direction. Navigation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Landmarks (dpeaa)DE-He213 Spatial memory (dpeaa)DE-He213 Spatial cognition (dpeaa)DE-He213 Orientation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hummingbirds (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hurly, T. Andrew verfasserin aut Healy, Susan D. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Animal Cognition Springer-Verlag, 1998 18(2015), 6 vom: 22. Juli, Seite 1285-1297 (DE-627)SPR008564442 nnns volume:18 year:2015 number:6 day:22 month:07 pages:1285-1297 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0896-7 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 18 2015 6 22 07 1285-1297 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Animal Cognition 18(2015), 6 vom: 22. Juli, Seite 1285-1297 volume:18 year:2015 number:6 day:22 month:07 pages:1285-1297 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Animal Cognition 18(2015), 6 vom: 22. Juli, Seite 1285-1297 volume:18 year:2015 number:6 day:22 month:07 pages:1285-1297 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Navigation Landmarks Spatial memory Spatial cognition Orientation Hummingbirds |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Animal Cognition |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Pritchard, David J. @@aut@@ Hurly, T. Andrew @@aut@@ Healy, Susan D. @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2015-07-22T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
SPR008564442 |
| id |
SPR008576106 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR008576106</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20201124045111.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201005s2015 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s10071-015-0896-7</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR008576106</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s10071-015-0896-7-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Pritchard, David J.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Effects of landmark distance and stability on accuracy of reward relocation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Although small-scale navigation is well studied in a wide range of species, much of what is known about landmark use by vertebrates is based on laboratory experiments. To investigate how vertebrates in the wild use landmarks, we trained wild male rufous hummingbirds to feed from a flower that was placed in a constant spatial relationship with two artificial landmarks. In the first experiment, the landmarks and flower were 0.25, 0.5 or 1 m apart and we always moved them 3–4 m after each visit by the bird. In the second experiment, the landmarks and flower were always 0.25 m apart and we moved them either 1 or 0.25 m between trials. In tests, in which we removed the flower, the hummingbirds stopped closer to the predicted flower location when the landmarks had been closer to the flower during training. However, while the distance that the birds stopped from the landmarks and predicted flower location was unaffected by the distance that the landmarks moved between trials, the birds directed their search nearer to the predicted direction of the flower, relative to the landmarks, when the landmarks and flower were more stable in the environment. In the field, then, landmarks alone were sufficient for the birds to determine the distance of a reward but not its direction.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Navigation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Landmarks</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Spatial memory</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Spatial cognition</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Orientation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Hummingbirds</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hurly, T. Andrew</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Healy, Susan D.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Animal Cognition</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer-Verlag, 1998</subfield><subfield code="g">18(2015), 6 vom: 22. Juli, Seite 1285-1297</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)SPR008564442</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:18</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2015</subfield><subfield code="g">number:6</subfield><subfield code="g">day:22</subfield><subfield code="g">month:07</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:1285-1297</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0896-7</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">18</subfield><subfield code="j">2015</subfield><subfield code="e">6</subfield><subfield code="b">22</subfield><subfield code="c">07</subfield><subfield code="h">1285-1297</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Pritchard, David J. |
| spellingShingle |
Pritchard, David J. misc Navigation misc Landmarks misc Spatial memory misc Spatial cognition misc Orientation misc Hummingbirds Effects of landmark distance and stability on accuracy of reward relocation |
| authorStr |
Pritchard, David J. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)SPR008564442 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut |
| collection |
springer |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
Effects of landmark distance and stability on accuracy of reward relocation Navigation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Landmarks (dpeaa)DE-He213 Spatial memory (dpeaa)DE-He213 Spatial cognition (dpeaa)DE-He213 Orientation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hummingbirds (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
| topic |
misc Navigation misc Landmarks misc Spatial memory misc Spatial cognition misc Orientation misc Hummingbirds |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc Navigation misc Landmarks misc Spatial memory misc Spatial cognition misc Orientation misc Hummingbirds |
| topic_browse |
misc Navigation misc Landmarks misc Spatial memory misc Spatial cognition misc Orientation misc Hummingbirds |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Animal Cognition |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
SPR008564442 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Animal Cognition |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)SPR008564442 |
| title |
Effects of landmark distance and stability on accuracy of reward relocation |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR008576106 (SPR)s10071-015-0896-7-e |
| title_full |
Effects of landmark distance and stability on accuracy of reward relocation |
| author_sort |
Pritchard, David J. |
| journal |
Animal Cognition |
| journalStr |
Animal Cognition |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2015 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
1285 |
| author_browse |
Pritchard, David J. Hurly, T. Andrew Healy, Susan D. |
| container_volume |
18 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Pritchard, David J. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s10071-015-0896-7 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
effects of landmark distance and stability on accuracy of reward relocation |
| title_auth |
Effects of landmark distance and stability on accuracy of reward relocation |
| abstract |
Abstract Although small-scale navigation is well studied in a wide range of species, much of what is known about landmark use by vertebrates is based on laboratory experiments. To investigate how vertebrates in the wild use landmarks, we trained wild male rufous hummingbirds to feed from a flower that was placed in a constant spatial relationship with two artificial landmarks. In the first experiment, the landmarks and flower were 0.25, 0.5 or 1 m apart and we always moved them 3–4 m after each visit by the bird. In the second experiment, the landmarks and flower were always 0.25 m apart and we moved them either 1 or 0.25 m between trials. In tests, in which we removed the flower, the hummingbirds stopped closer to the predicted flower location when the landmarks had been closer to the flower during training. However, while the distance that the birds stopped from the landmarks and predicted flower location was unaffected by the distance that the landmarks moved between trials, the birds directed their search nearer to the predicted direction of the flower, relative to the landmarks, when the landmarks and flower were more stable in the environment. In the field, then, landmarks alone were sufficient for the birds to determine the distance of a reward but not its direction. |
| abstractGer |
Abstract Although small-scale navigation is well studied in a wide range of species, much of what is known about landmark use by vertebrates is based on laboratory experiments. To investigate how vertebrates in the wild use landmarks, we trained wild male rufous hummingbirds to feed from a flower that was placed in a constant spatial relationship with two artificial landmarks. In the first experiment, the landmarks and flower were 0.25, 0.5 or 1 m apart and we always moved them 3–4 m after each visit by the bird. In the second experiment, the landmarks and flower were always 0.25 m apart and we moved them either 1 or 0.25 m between trials. In tests, in which we removed the flower, the hummingbirds stopped closer to the predicted flower location when the landmarks had been closer to the flower during training. However, while the distance that the birds stopped from the landmarks and predicted flower location was unaffected by the distance that the landmarks moved between trials, the birds directed their search nearer to the predicted direction of the flower, relative to the landmarks, when the landmarks and flower were more stable in the environment. In the field, then, landmarks alone were sufficient for the birds to determine the distance of a reward but not its direction. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract Although small-scale navigation is well studied in a wide range of species, much of what is known about landmark use by vertebrates is based on laboratory experiments. To investigate how vertebrates in the wild use landmarks, we trained wild male rufous hummingbirds to feed from a flower that was placed in a constant spatial relationship with two artificial landmarks. In the first experiment, the landmarks and flower were 0.25, 0.5 or 1 m apart and we always moved them 3–4 m after each visit by the bird. In the second experiment, the landmarks and flower were always 0.25 m apart and we moved them either 1 or 0.25 m between trials. In tests, in which we removed the flower, the hummingbirds stopped closer to the predicted flower location when the landmarks had been closer to the flower during training. However, while the distance that the birds stopped from the landmarks and predicted flower location was unaffected by the distance that the landmarks moved between trials, the birds directed their search nearer to the predicted direction of the flower, relative to the landmarks, when the landmarks and flower were more stable in the environment. In the field, then, landmarks alone were sufficient for the birds to determine the distance of a reward but not its direction. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER |
| container_issue |
6 |
| title_short |
Effects of landmark distance and stability on accuracy of reward relocation |
| url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0896-7 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Hurly, T. Andrew Healy, Susan D. |
| author2Str |
Hurly, T. Andrew Healy, Susan D. |
| ppnlink |
SPR008564442 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s10071-015-0896-7 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T21:56:02.662Z |
| _version_ |
1803596608478117888 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR008576106</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20201124045111.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201005s2015 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s10071-015-0896-7</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR008576106</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s10071-015-0896-7-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Pritchard, David J.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Effects of landmark distance and stability on accuracy of reward relocation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Although small-scale navigation is well studied in a wide range of species, much of what is known about landmark use by vertebrates is based on laboratory experiments. To investigate how vertebrates in the wild use landmarks, we trained wild male rufous hummingbirds to feed from a flower that was placed in a constant spatial relationship with two artificial landmarks. In the first experiment, the landmarks and flower were 0.25, 0.5 or 1 m apart and we always moved them 3–4 m after each visit by the bird. In the second experiment, the landmarks and flower were always 0.25 m apart and we moved them either 1 or 0.25 m between trials. In tests, in which we removed the flower, the hummingbirds stopped closer to the predicted flower location when the landmarks had been closer to the flower during training. However, while the distance that the birds stopped from the landmarks and predicted flower location was unaffected by the distance that the landmarks moved between trials, the birds directed their search nearer to the predicted direction of the flower, relative to the landmarks, when the landmarks and flower were more stable in the environment. In the field, then, landmarks alone were sufficient for the birds to determine the distance of a reward but not its direction.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Navigation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Landmarks</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Spatial memory</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Spatial cognition</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Orientation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Hummingbirds</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hurly, T. Andrew</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Healy, Susan D.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Animal Cognition</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer-Verlag, 1998</subfield><subfield code="g">18(2015), 6 vom: 22. Juli, Seite 1285-1297</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)SPR008564442</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:18</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2015</subfield><subfield code="g">number:6</subfield><subfield code="g">day:22</subfield><subfield code="g">month:07</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:1285-1297</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0896-7</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">18</subfield><subfield code="j">2015</subfield><subfield code="e">6</subfield><subfield code="b">22</subfield><subfield code="c">07</subfield><subfield code="h">1285-1297</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.400571 |