What Is A "Behavioral Template" In Animal Behavior

Figure 1

An overview of all stimuli that were used in the face-categorization part of this study. The first five faces and objects were used for training. The second set of five faces and objects was used for both generalization tests.

An overview of all stimuli that were used in the face-categorization office of this study. The outset five faces and objects were used for training. The second set of v faces and objects was used for both generalization tests.

Figure 2

Examples of stimuli used in each phase. Note that only one face and one object per phase are shown here. These were chosen randomly, and their only purpose is to give an example of the stimuli. For a full set, see Figure 1.

Examples of stimuli used in each stage. Note that but one face up and i object per phase are shown here. These were called randomly, and their but purpose is to give an example of the stimuli. For a full fix, see Effigy 1.

Figure 3

(a) The set stimuli that were used for the Bubbles part of this study. Note that only three faces and three objects were used. All stimuli are shown on a gray background. (b) Example of stimuli that are masked with a number of Gaussian blobs. (c) Unsmoothed differential image.

(a) The set stimuli that were used for the Bubbles part of this report. Annotation that merely three faces and three objects were used. All stimuli are shown on a gray background. (b) Instance of stimuli that are masked with a number of Gaussian blobs. (c) Unsmoothed differential image.

Figure iv

Examples of Bubbles masks. With this Bubbles size, it is still possible to mask only one facial feature while still showing all other features.

Examples of Bubbles masks. With this Bubbles size, it is nevertheless possible to mask only one facial feature while still showing all other features.

Figure 5

Learning curves of the offset five phases, including both the new and former stimuli for each phase. In that location is one subplot for each rat, and each line indicates the learning bend of one phase. The grey data points in the plots of Rats one, four, and half dozen indicate outliers due to a low number of trials in a session (< 8 trials). The black dashed line represents chance-level performance; the red dashed line indicates our operation benchmark of 80%.

Figure 6

Learning curves of the first five phases, averaged over all rats. These learning curves include both the new and old stimuli, as each possible combination of old and new stimuli was presented. The shaded error bar corresponds to the standard error. The black dashed line represents chance-level performance; the red dashed line indicates our performance criterion of 80%.

Learning curves of the commencement v phases, averaged over all rats. These learning curves include both the new and old stimuli, as each possible combination of old and new stimuli was presented. The shaded error bar corresponds to the standard mistake. The black dashed line represents chance-level functioning; the red dashed line indicates our functioning criterion of 80%.

Figure vii

(a) Matrix visualizing the performance of all rats combined on the first generalization test (Phase 6) per pair of stimuli. The average number of trials per matrix cell is 24. (b) The performance matrices of each individual rat.

(a) Matrix visualizing the functioning of all rats combined on the start generalization test (Phase 6) per pair of stimuli. The average number of trials per matrix cell is 24. (b) The performance matrices of each individual rat.

Figure 8

Learning curves of four rats for Phase 11. Each line indicates one rat. The black dashed line represents chance-level performance; the red dashed line indicates our performance criterion of 80%.

Learning curves of four rats for Phase eleven. Each line indicates one rat. The black dashed line represents chance-level performance; the red dashed line indicates our performance criterion of eighty%.

Figure 9

(a) Matrix visualizing the performance of all rats combined on Phase 12, per pair of stimulus. The average number of trials per matrix cell is 16. (b) The performance matrices of all individual rats. Note that only four rats (2, 3, 4, and 5) were used in this phase.

(a) Matrix visualizing the performance of all rats combined on Stage 12, per pair of stimulus. The average number of trials per matrix cell is sixteen. (b) The performance matrices of all private rats. Note that only iv rats (2, iii, four, and five) were used in this stage.

Figure 10

Learning curves of four rats for Phases 13–16c. Each line indicates one phase. The gray data point in the plot of Rat 3 indicates an outlier. The black dashed line represents chance-level performance; the red dashed line indicates our performance criterion of 80%.

Learning curves of four rats for Phases 13–16c. Each line indicates ane stage. The gray data point in the plot of Rat three indicates an outlier. The black dashed line represents chance-level performance; the cherry-red dashed line indicates our performance criterion of lxxx%.

Figure 11

Bar plots of the average performance of all rats on Phases 17 (left) and 18 (right). The error bars indicate the standard error across rats. The black dashed line represents chance-level performance; the red dashed line indicates our performance criterion of 80%.

Bar plots of the average operation of all rats on Phases 17 (left) and 18 (correct). The error bars signal the standard fault across rats. The blackness dashed line represents chance-level performance; the cherry dashed line indicates our functioning benchmark of 80%.

Figure 12

The behavioral thresholded template, averaged over all rats and stimuli (red). The red contour visualizes the significant area on which all rats, on average, focus to distinguish between a face and a nonface object. The white contour indicates the contour of the pixel-based template. The contours are shown on top of a combined image of all stimuli.

The behavioral thresholded template, averaged over all rats and stimuli (red). The blood-red contour visualizes the significant expanse on which all rats, on average, focus to distinguish between a confront and a nonface object. The white contour indicates the contour of the pixel-based template. The contours are shown on superlative of a combined image of all stimuli.

Figure 13

The white contour indicates the pixel-based template. The turquoise, purple, orange, and green contours show the templates of each individual rat.

The white contour indicates the pixel-based template. The turquoise, purple, orange, and green contours show the templates of each private rat.

Figure 14

Correlation matrices for the between-rats analysis. First, a behavioral template for every pair was obtained from every rat—that is, nine templates per rat. Next, we correlated each template pixel-wise between rats, which then corresponds to one pixel in these matrices. Top row (from left): correlation between Rats 2 and 3, Rats ii and four, and Rats 2 and six. Bottom row (from left): correlation between Rats 3 and 4, Rats 3 and 6, and Rats iv and vi. The colour bar indicates the Pearson correlation coefficient. From these matrices we tin can meet that Rats 3 and 4, equally well as Rats 3 and 6, use a like template for each pair, as indicated by their high correlations. An unpaired t test confirms this, and the results tin can be found in Table xiii. The average correlations of these matrices tin can exist found in Tabular array 13.

Figure fifteen

Correlation matrices of the within-rat analysis. Each matrix shows the consistency of the templates within a rat between all pairs. For each rat, we pixel-wise correlated the template of one pair to every other pair. From these matrices we can clearly see that Rat 3 has overall high correlations, suggesting that this rat has a high consistency in its templates.

Correlation matrices of the inside-rat assay. Each matrix shows the consistency of the templates within a rat between all pairs. For each rat, we pixel-wise correlated the template of i pair to every other pair. From these matrices nosotros tin conspicuously see that Rat 3 has overall high correlations, suggesting that this rat has a loftier consistency in its templates.

Figure 16

Correlation matrices of each rat between its behavioral template on each stimulus pair and the pixel-based template of each pair. The numbers on the axes indicate the stimulus pair number. The color bar indicates the Pearson correlation coefficient. We can clearly see that Rat 3 has overall high correlations with the pixel-based template. Table 14 provides an overview of the average correlations of these matrices.

Table 1

An overview of all phases of the first function of the report.

Table 2

Operation criteria. Rats had to perform at or in a higher place the threshold (left cavalcade) during a predetermined number of sessions (right column). During the last session, they had to be at or above threshold; if they were not, the threshold was lowered.

Table iii

An overview of the number of sessions and trials per rat that were performed during the Bubbling role of this report. The last row indicates the boilerplate number (± standard error).

Tabular array 4

Binomial test on the pooled response of all rats. The middle column specifies the p value for the kickoff session.

Tabular array five

The pct correct during the starting time generalization test for each rat individually and for the pooled response of all rats, as well as p values and 95% confidence intervals.

Tabular array 6

The percentage correct during the second generalization test (Phase 12) of each rat individually and for the pooled response of all rats, every bit well every bit p values and 95% confidence intervals.

Table 7

An overview of performance in Phases 17 (upside down) and 18 (contrast inverted). The terminal row indicates the average operation over all rats (± standard error).

Table eight

An overview of the p values and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the binomial exam for Phase 17 (upside down). The terminal row indicates the results of the binomial exam on the pooled response of all rats.

Tabular array 9

An overview of the p values and 95% conviction intervals (CIs) of the binomial exam for Stage 18 (contrast inverted). The last row indicates the results of the binomial test on the pooled response of all rats.

Table 10

Percentages of overlap: how much the pixel-based template (PBT) overlaps with the template of the rat and much the template of the rat overlaps with the PBT. The last row indicates the average overlap for all rats.

Table 11

Percentages of overlap between rats.

Table 12

The results of an unpaired t test on the diagonal and nondiagonal values of the correlation matrices in Effigy 14. The significance of Rats 3 and 4, as well every bit Rats iii and half-dozen, indicates that these rats use similar templates.

Tabular array xiii

Average Pearson correlation coefficients between performance for each pair of rats, likewise as the boilerplate correlation of the diagonal elements. Not the loftier average correlation between the templates of Rats iii and six (which can likewise be seen in the correlation matrices in Figure 14).

Table xiv

Average correlation coefficients between the templates of the rats and the pixel-based template, as well equally the boilerplate correlation of the diagonal elements. Note that on boilerplate, all rats show a positive correlation with the pixel-based template. More specifically, Rat 3 shows, on boilerplate, the highest correlation to the pixel-based template, which is also visible in Figure 16.

Table 15

Results of an unpaired t test on the diagonal and nondiagonal values of the correlation matrices in Figure 16. Due to the lack of meaning p values, we assume that the rats do non necessarily employ templates that differ between image pairs in a mode that relates to where images differ. This can also be seen in Figure 16, as there is no conspicuously visible diagonal.

Source: https://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2757414

Posted by: smithbanke1953.blogspot.com