Brucks Désirée, Marshall-Pescini Sarah, Range Friederike
Domestication Lab, Wolf Science Center, Konrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Savoyenstraße 1a, 1160, Vienna, Austria.
Comparative Cognition, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, 1210, Vienna, Austria.
Anim Cogn. 2019 Jan;22(1):1-15. doi: 10.1007/s10071-018-1216-9. Epub 2018 Oct 3.
Being able to inhibit certain behaviours is of clear advantage in various situations. In particular, it has been suggested that inhibitory control plays a role in problem-solving and cooperation. Interspecific differences in the capacity for inhibitory control have been attributed to social and ecological factors, while one additional factor, namely domestication, has received only little attention so far. Dogs are an interesting species to test the effects of socio-ecological factors and also the influence of domestication on inhibitory control abilities. While dogs might have been selected for enhanced inhibition skills during domestication, the predictions derived from their socio-ecological background are reversed. Wolves are cooperative hunters and breeders, while dogs predominately scavenge and raise their young alone, accordingly, it would be predicted that dogs show impaired inhibitory control abilities since they no longer rely on these coordinated actions. To test these hypotheses, we assessed inhibitory control abilities in dogs and wolves raised and kept under similar conditions. Moreover, considering the problem of context-specificity in inhibitory control measures, we employed a multiple-test-approach. In line with previous studies, we found that the single inhibition tests did not correlate with each other. Using an exploratory approach, we found three components that explained the variation of behaviours across tests: motivation, flexibility, and perseveration. Interestingly, these inhibition components did not differ between dogs and wolves, which contradicts the predictions based on their socio-ecological backgrounds but also suggests that at least in tasks with minimal human influence, domestication did not affect dogs' inhibitory control abilities, thus raising questions in regard to the selection processes that might have affected inhibitory control abilities during the course of domestication.
在各种情况下，能够抑制某些行为具有明显的优势。特别是，有人认为抑制控制在解决问题和合作中发挥着作用。抑制控制能力的种间差异归因于社会和生态因素，而另一个因素，即驯化，迄今为止受到的关注很少。狗是一个有趣的物种，可以用来测试社会生态因素的影响以及驯化对抑制控制能力的影响。虽然狗在驯化过程中可能被选择来增强抑制技能，但从它们的社会生态背景得出的预测却相反。狼是合作的猎手和繁殖者，而狗主要是 scavenge 并独自抚养幼崽，因此，可以预测狗的抑制控制能力会受损，因为它们不再依赖这些协调行动。为了检验这些假设，我们评估了在相似条件下饲养和饲养的狗和狼的抑制控制能力。此外，考虑到抑制控制措施中特定情境的问题，我们采用了多重测试方法。与先前的研究一致，我们发现单个抑制测试之间没有相关性。使用探索性方法，我们发现了三个解释跨测试行为变化的成分：动机、灵活性和坚持性。有趣的是，这些抑制成分在狗和狼之间没有差异，这与基于它们的社会生态背景的预测相矛盾，但也表明至少在人类影响最小的任务中，驯化并没有影响狗的抑制控制能力，从而引发了关于在驯化过程中可能影响抑制控制能力的选择过程的问题。
这里scavenge没有完全对应的中文词汇，可根据语境理解为“捡食”等含义 。
