Number sense is a key cognitive function in animals. The biological functions of number discrimination have a wide range, including the selection of prey and social interaction. In a previous study, we have shown that cuttlefish are able to distinguish numerical differences among various integers, including 1 vs. 2, 2 vs. 3, 3 vs. 4, and 4 vs. 5. However, it is not known whether cuttlefish are able to discriminate various fractions, that is, various non-integer numbers. In addition, no study on invertebrates has examined fraction number sense. Using the active preying behavior of cuttlefish (Sepia pharaonis), we investigated the spontaneous preference for larger quantity by presenting two-alternative choice between 1 vs. 1.5, 1.5 vs. 2, 2 vs. 2.5, and 2.5 vs. 3. In this context, the quantity1.5 is composed of one large shrimp and one small shrimp, in which the size of the small shrimp is one-half of that of the large shrimp. The result shows that the cuttlefish chose larger quantity in the first three pairs, but they could not distinguish the pair 2.5 vs. 3. Despite that the absolute differences in these pairs are the same (0.5), the relative differences in these pairs decrease (0.5, 0.33, 0.25, and 0.2, respectively). This implies that the perceived difference in quantity is proportional to the initial quantity (Weber’s law). Although the present study does not truly differentiate the number difference from the quantity difference, this result does raise the possibility that cuttlefish may be equipped with the primitive concept of fractions, and if so, the perceived just noticeable difference is similar for both integer and fraction number discrimination.
Number discrimination Common fractions Weber fractions
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We are grateful to Ms. Tzu-Hsin Kuo for helping with the experiments and discussing the results with us. We thank Dr. Te-Hua Hsu and Mr. Yao-Chen Lee for collecting the cuttlefish eggs from Keelung and Gongliao. We also appreciate Ms. Ting-Chia Hsu at the National Hsinchu Girls’ Senior High School for encouraging YHH, HJL, and LYL to pursue this project.
This study was funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan (Grant number MOST-106-2311-B-007-010-MY3).
Compliance with ethical standards
All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
Conflict of interest
All authors (YH Huang, HJ Lin, LY Lin, and CC Chiao) declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Agin W, Chichery R, Dickel L, Chichery MP (2006) The “prawn-in-the-tube” procedure in the cuttlefish: habituation or passive avoidance learning? Learn Mem 13(1):97–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agrillo C, Bisazza A (2014) Spontaneous versus trained numerical abilities: a comparison between the two main tools to study numerical competence in non-human animals. J Neurosci Methods 234:82–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanus D, Call J (2007) Discrete quantity judgments in the great apes (Pan paniscus, Pan troglodytes, Gorilla gorilla, Pongo pygmaeus): the effect of presenting whole sets versus item-by-item. J Comp Psychol 121(3):241–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones SM, Pearson J, DeWind NK, Paulsen D, Tenekedjieva AM, Brannon EM (2014) Lemurs and macaques show similar numerical sensitivity. Anim Cogn 17(3):503–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan KE, Brannon EM (2006) The multisensory representation of number in infancy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103(9):3486–3489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jozet-Alves C, Viblanc VA, Romagny S, Dacher M, Healy SD, Dickel L (2012) Visual lateralization is task and age dependent in cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis. Anim Behav 83(6):1313–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahl M, Si A, Zhang SW (2013) Numerical cognition in bees and other insects. Front Psychol 4:162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panteleeva S, Reznikova Z, Vygonyailova O (2013) Quantity judgments in the context of risk/reward decision making in striped field mice: first “count,” then hunt. Front Psychol 4:53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piazza M, Izard V (2009) How humans count: numerosity and the parietal cortex. Neuroscientist 15(3):261–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rugani R, Vallortigara G, Regolin L (2015) The use of proportion by young domestic chicks (Gallus gallus). Anim Cogn 18(3):605–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar