Guppies show sex and individual differences in the ability to inhibit behaviour

Abstract

In humans, individual and sex differences have been long reported for several cognitive tasks and are at least in part due to variability in the function that inhibits behaviour (i.e. inhibitory control). Similar evidence of individual and sex differences in inhibitory abilities is also present in other vertebrates, but is scarce outside primates. Experiments on reversal learning, which requires inhibiting behaviours, suggest that this variability may exist in a teleost fish, the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. We tested this hypothesis by observing guppies in an inhibitory task. Guppies were exposed to unreachable prey inside a transparent tube for six trials. Guppies showed a marked reduction in the number of attempts to catch the prey within the first trial and also over repeated trials. We found a striking sex difference in the capacity to inhibit foraging behaviour. Males attempted to attack the prey twice as often as females and showed negligible improvement over trials. Irrespective of sex, individuals remarkably differed in their performance, with some guppies being systematically more skilled than others across the repeated trials. These results confirm that individual and sex differences in the ability to inhibit behaviour are not restricted to humans and other primates, suggesting that they might be widespread among vertebrates. Variability in inhibitory ability provides an explanation for emerging records of variability in other cognitive tasks in fish.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Agin V, Dickel L, Chichery R, Chichery MP (1998) Evidence for a specific short-term memory in the cuttlefish, Sepia. Behav Process 43:329–334

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Amici F, Aureli F, Call J (2008) Fission-fusion dynamics, behavioral flexibility, and inhibitory control in primates. Curr Biol 18:1415–1419

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Baler RD, Volkow ND (2006) Drug addiction: the neurobiology of disrupted self-control. Trend Mol Med 12:559–566

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Beran MJ (2015) The comparative science of “self-control”: what are we talking about? Front Psychol 6:51

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Beran MJ, Hopkins WD (2018) Self-control in chimpanzees relates to general intelligence. Curr Biol 28:574–579

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Brandão ML, Braithwaite VA, Gonçalves-de-Freitas E (2015) Isolation impairs cognition in a social fish. Appl Anim Behav Sci 171:204–210

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bshary R, Brown C (2014) Fish cognition. Curr Biol 24:R947–R950

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Buechel SD, Boussard A, Kotrschal A, van der Bijl W, Kolm N (2018) Brain size affects performance in a reversal-learning test. Proc R Soc B 285:20172031

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cain K (2006) Individual differences in children's memory and reading comprehension: An investigation of semantic and inhibitory deficits. Memory 14:553–569

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Carere C, Locurto C (2011) Interaction between animal personality and animal cognition. Curr Zool 57:491–498

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cong L, Wang Z, Chai Y, Hang W, Shang C, Yang W et al (2017) Rapid whole brain imaging of neural activity in freely behaving larval zebrafish (Danio rerio). Elife 6:e28158

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Dahlgren BT (1981) Impact of different dietary protein contents on fecundity and fertility in the female guppy, Poecilia reticulata (Peters). Biol Reprod 24:734–746

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Diamond A (1990) Developmental time course in human infants and infant monkeys, and the neural bases of inhibitory control in reaching. Ann N Y Acad Sci 608:637–676

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Diamond A (2013) Executive Functions. Ann Rev Psychol 64:135–168

    Google Scholar 

  15. Enticott PG, Ogloff JR, Bradshaw JL, Fitzgerald PB (2008) Cognitive inhibitory control and self-reported impulsivity among violent offenders with schizophrenia. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 30:157–162

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Estep DQ, Nieuwenhuijsen K, Bruce KE, De Neef KJ, Walters PA III, Baker SC, Slob AK (1988) Inhibition of sexual behaviour among subordinate stumptail macaques, Macaca arctoides. Anim Behav 36:854–864

    Google Scholar 

  17. Etheredge RI, Avenas C, Armstrong MJ, Cummings ME (2018) Sex-specific cognitive–behavioural profiles emerging from individual variation in numerosity discrimination in Gambusia affinis. Anim Cogn 21:37–53

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Garavan H, Hester R, Murphy K, Fassbender C, Kelly C (2006) Individual differences in the functional neuroanatomy of inhibitory control. Brain Res 1105:130–142

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gaulin SJ, FitzGerald RW (1986) Sex differences in spatial ability: an evolutionary hypothesis and test. Am Nat 127:74–88

    Google Scholar 

  20. Genty E, Roeder JJ (2006) Self-control: why should sea lions, Zalophus californianus, perform better than primates? Anim Behav 72:1241–1247

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gibbs RB, Johnson DA (2008) Sex-specific effects of gonadectomy and hormone treatment on acquisition of a 12-arm radial maze task by Sprague Dawley rats. Endocrinology 149:3176–3183

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Gilmore C, Attridge N, Clayton S, Cragg L, Johnson S, Marlow N et al (2013) Individual differences in inhibitory control, not non-verbal number acuity, correlate with mathematics achievement. PLoS ONE 8:e67374

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Guillamón A, Valencia A, Calés J, Segovia S (1986) Effects of early postnatal gonadal steroids on the successive conditional discrimination reversal learning in the rat. Physiol Behav 38:845–849

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hausmann M, Slabbekoorn D, Van Goozen SH, Cohen-Kettenis PT, Güntürkün O (2000) Sex hormones affect spatial abilities during the menstrual cycle. Behav Neurosci 114:1245–1250

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Houde A (1997) Sex, color, and mate choice in guppies. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  26. Jones CM, Braithwaite VA, Healy SD (2003) The evolution of sex differences in spatial ability. Behav Neurosci 117:403–411

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kabadayi C, Taylor LA, von Bayern AM, Osvath M (2016) Ravens, New Caledonian crows and jackdaws parallel great apes in motor self-regulation despite smaller brains. Roy Soc Open Sci 3:160104

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kabadayi C, Krasheninnikova A, O’neill L, van de Weijer J, Osvath M, von Bayern AM (2017) Are parrots poor at motor self-regulation or is the cylinder task poor at measuring it? Anim Cogn 20:1137–1146

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Kieffer JD, Colgan PW (1991) Individual variation in learning by foraging pumpkinseed sunfish, Lepomis gibbosus: the influence of habitat. Anim Behav 41:603–611

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kralik JD, Hauser MD, Zimlicki R (2002) The relationship between problem solving and inhibitory control: Cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) performance on a reversed contingency task. J Comp Psychol 116:39

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lindsay DR, Dunsmore DG, Williams JD, Syme GJ (1976) Audience effects on the mating behaviour of rams. Anim Behav 24:818–821

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lucon-Xiccato T, Bertolucci C (2019) Guppies show rapid and lasting inhibition of foraging behaviour. Behav Process 164:91–99

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lucon-Xiccato T, Bisazza A (2014) Discrimination reversal learning reveals greater female behavioural flexibility in guppies. Biol Lett 10:20140206

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Lucon-Xiccato T, Bisazza A (2017a) Individual differences in cognition among teleost fishes. Behav Proc 141:184–195

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lucon-Xiccato T, Bisazza A (2017b) Complex maze learning by fish. Anim Behav 125:69–75

    Google Scholar 

  36. Lucon-Xiccato T, Bisazza A (2017c) Sex differences in spatial abilities and cognitive flexibility in the guppy. Anim Behav 123:53–60

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lucon-Xiccato T, Dadda M (2017) Individual guppies differ in quantity discrimination performance across antipredator and foraging contexts. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 71:13

    Google Scholar 

  38. Lucon-Xiccato T, Dadda M, Bisazza A (2016) Sex differences in discrimination of shoal size in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Ethology 122:481–491

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lucon-Xiccato T, Gatto E, Bisazza A (2017) Fish perform like mammals and birds in inhibitory motor control tasks. Sci Rep 7:13144

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Lucon-Xiccato T, Montalbano G, Bertolucci C (2019) Personality traits covary with individual differences in inhibitory abilities in 2 species of fish. Curr Zool. https://doi.org/10.1093/cz/zoz039

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. MacLean EL et al (2014) The evolution of self-control. Proc Nat Acad Sci 111:E2140–E2148

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Magurran AE, Seghers BH (1994) A cost of sexual harassment in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Proc R Soc B 258:89–92

    Google Scholar 

  43. Miletto Petrazzini ME, Bisazza A, Agrillo C, Lucon-Xiccato T (2017) Sex differences in discrimination reversal learning in the guppy. Anim Cogn 20:1081–1091

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Müller CA, Riemer S, Virányi Z, Huber L, Range F (2016) Inhibitory control, but not prolonged object-related experience appears to affect physical problem-solving performance of pet dogs. PLoS ONE 11:e0147753

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Nigg JT (2001) Is ADHD a disinhibitory disorder? Psychol Bull 127:571–598

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Rankin CH, Abrams T, Barry RJ, Bhatnagar S, Clayton DF, Colombo J et al (2009) Habituation revisited: an updated and revised description of the behavioral characteristics of habituation. Neurobiol Learn Mem 92:135–138

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Reader SM, Laland KN (2000) Diffusion of foraging innovations in the guppy. Anim Behav 60:175–180

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Rogers LJ (1974) Persistence and search influenced by natural levels of androgens in young and adult chickens. Physiol Behav 12:197–204

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Rohr JR, Madison DM (2001) A chemically mediated trade-off between predation risk and mate search in newts. Anim Behav 62:863–869

    Google Scholar 

  50. Rowe C, Healy SD (2014) Measuring variation in cognition. Behav Ecol 25:1287–1292

    Google Scholar 

  51. Rowe L, Cameron E, Day T (2005) Escalation, retreat, and female indifference as alternative outcomes of sexually antagonistic coevolution. Am Nat 165:S5–S18

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Roy T, Bhat A (2018) Divergences in learning and memory among wild zebrafish: Do sex and body size play a role? Learn Behav 46:124–133

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Ryer CH, Olla BL (1991) Information transfer and the facilitation and inhibition of feeding in a schooling fish. Environ Biol Fishes 30:317–323

    Google Scholar 

  54. Santacà M, Busatta M, Lucon-Xiccato T, Bisazza A (2019) Sensory differences mediate species variation in detour task performance. Anim Behav 155:153–162

    Google Scholar 

  55. Shamosh NA, DeYoung CG, Green AE, Reis DL, Johnson MR, Conway AR, Engle RW, Braver TS, Gray JR (2008) Individual differences in delay discounting: relation to intelligence, working memory, and anterior prefrontal cortex. Psychol Sci 19:904–911

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Shettleworth SJ (2009) Cognition, evolution, and behavior. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  57. Studzinski ALM, Barros DM, Marins LF (2015) Growth hormone (GH) increases cognition and expression of ionotropic glutamate receptors (AMPA and NMDA) in transgenic zebrafish (Danio rerio). Behav Brain Res 294:36–42

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Szabo B, Whiting MJ, Noble DW (2019) Sex-dependent discrimination learning in lizards: a meta-analysis. Behav Process. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2019.04.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Tapp PD, Siwak CT, Estrada J, Head E, Muggenburg BA, Cotman CW, Milgram NW (2003) Size and reversal learning in the beagle dog as a measure of executive function and inhibitory control in aging. Learn Mem 10:64–73

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Thornton A, Lukas D (2012) Individual variation in cognitive performance: developmental and evolutionary perspectives. Philos Trans R Soc B 367:2773–2783

    Google Scholar 

  61. van Horik JO, Langley EJ, Whiteside MA, Laker PR, Beardsworth CE, Madden JR (2018) Do detour tasks provide accurate assays of inhibitory control? Proc R Soc B 285:20180150

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Vlamings PH, Hare B, Call J (2010) Reaching around barriers: the performance of the great apes and 3–5-year-old children. Anim Cogn 13:273–285

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Völter CJ, Tinklenberg B, Call J, Seed AM (2018) Comparative psychometrics: establishing what differs is central to understanding what evolves. Philos Trans R Soc B 373:20170283

    Google Scholar 

  64. White SL, Wagner T, Gowan C, Braithwaite VA (2017) Can personality predict individual differences in brook trout spatial learning ability? Behav Process 141:220–228

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Widholm JJ, Clarkson GB, Strupp BJ, Crofton KM, Seegal RF, Schantz SL (2001) Spatial reversal learning in Aroclor 1254-exposed rats: sex-specific deficits in associative ability and inhibitory control. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 174:188–198

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Andrea Margutti for his help in building the apparatuses and Giulia Trioschi for help in testing the subjects.

Funding

This work was supported by FAR 2018 and FIR 2018 Grant from University of Ferrara to TLX.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tyrone Lucon-Xiccato.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The experiment followed the law of the country in which they were performed (Italy, D.L. 4 Marzo 2014, n. 26). The Ethical Committee of the University of Ferrara reviewed and approved all the experimental procedures (TLX 2-2018-PR). No fish showed sign of distress during the experiments. We released all the fish into stock tanks after the study for future breeding purposes.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lucon-Xiccato, T., Bisazza, A. & Bertolucci, C. Guppies show sex and individual differences in the ability to inhibit behaviour. Anim Cogn 23, 535–543 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-020-01357-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Fish cognition
  • Individual differences
  • Inhibitory control
  • Sex differences