Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of information load on response times in frogs and bats: mate choice vs. prey choice

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Decisions tend to become more challenging as the number of available options increases and choice sets become more complex. Choosing between multiple options may require additional information processing time and effort. Here, we asked if response time increases with stimulus number and attractiveness by female frogs (Physalaemus pustulosus) and their predators, frog-eating bats (Trachops cirrhosus), when comparing the mating calls of male túngara frogs. We found that frogs’ response time is significantly longer when presented with two calls, compared with one. Bats also take longer to respond when presented with two calls but only when they were complex calls. Although the frogs and bats behave somewhat similarly in this experiment, the decisions that these animals are making are occurring in different domains (mating vs. foraging) and have different fitness consequences. Given these differences, we find it especially interesting that for both frogs and bats, we see similar temporal patterns in response times as a function of information load.

Significance statement

Animals are often faced with several options simultaneously. One cost of decision-making is the time involved in choosing the best option within a choice set. Here, we asked whether female frogs and frog-eating bats take longer to respond when presented multiple frog mating calls simultaneously. We also asked whether the attractiveness of those frog calls influences the time it takes frogs and bats to respond to them. We found that the time to respond was influenced by both the number and attractiveness of frog calls for both bats and frogs; however, frog response time seemed to be more greatly influenced by the number of frog calls, while bat response time seemed to be more influenced by the attractiveness of frog calls. In general, our results suggest that there may be similar mechanisms involved in decision-making for both animals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data are deposited in figshare (frogs: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8476025.v1; bats: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8475533.v1).

References

  • Akre KL, Ryan MJ (2011) Female túngara frogs elicit more complex mating signals from males. Behav Ecol 22:846–853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akre KL, Farris HE, Lea AM, Page RA, Ryan MJ (2011) Signal perception in frogs and bats and the evolution of mating signals. Science 333:751–752

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson M, Healy SD, Hurly TA (2002) Irrational choices in hummingbird foraging behaviour. Anim Behav 63:587–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baugh AT, Ryan MJ (2010) Ambient light alters temporal-updating behaviour during mate choice in a Neotropical frog. Can J Zool 88:448–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernal XE, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (2007) Sex differences in response to nonconspecific advertisement calls: receiver permissiveness in male and female túngara frogs. Anim Behav 73:955–964

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosch J, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (2000) Signal variation and call preferences for whine frequency in the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:62–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury JW, Gibson RM (1983) Leks and mate choice. In: Bateson P (ed) Mate choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 109–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns JG, Rodd FH (2008) Hastiness, brain size and predation regime affect the performance of wild guppies in a spatial memory task. Anim Behav 76:911–922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chernev A, Hamilton R (2009) Assortment size and option attractiveness in consumer choice among retailers. J Mark Res 46:410–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chernev A, Böckenholt U, Goodman J (2015) Choice overload: a conceptual review and meta-analysis. J Consum Psychol 25:333–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chittka L, Dyer AG, Bock F, Dornhaus A (2003) Bees trade off foraging speed for accuracy: psychophysics. Nature 424:388–388

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chittka L, Skorupski P, Raine NE (2009) Speed–accuracy tradeoffs in animal decision making. Trends Ecol Evol 24:400–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson B, Ryan MJ (2012) Female preferences are not altered by early acoustic experience in the Neotropical frog Physalaemus pustulosus. J Herpetol 46:535–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dukas R (1999) Costs of memory: ideas and predictions. J Theor Biol 197:41–50

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fox J, Weisberg S (2011) An R companion to applied regression. Sage Publishing, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Fugère V, O’Mara MT, Page RA (2015) Perceptual bias does not explain preference for prey call adornment in the frog-eating bat. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 69:1353–1364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer G (1997) Bounded rationality: models of fast and frugal inference. Swiss J Econ Stat 133:201–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W (2011) Heuristic decision making. Annu Rev Psychol 62:451–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gold JI, Shadlen MN (2007) The neural basis of decision making. Annu Rev Neurosci 30:535–574

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hadar L, Sood S (2014) When knowledge is demotivating: subjective knowledge and choice overload. Psychol Sci 25:1739–1747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hick WE (1952) On the rate of gain of information. Q J Exp Psychol 4:11–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyman R (1953) Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. J Exp Psychol 45:188–196

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ings TC, Chittka L (2008) Speed-accuracy tradeoffs and false alarms in bee responses to cryptic predators. Curr Biol 18:1520–1524

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar SS, Lepper MR (2000) When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing? J Pers Soc Psychol 79:995–1006

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kacelnik A, Vasconcelos M, Monteiro T, Aw J (2011) Darwin’s “tug-of-war” vs. starlings’ “horse-racing”: how adaptations for sequential encounters drive simultaneous choice. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:547–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Page RA, Ryan MJ (2005) Flexibility in assessment of prey cues: frog-eating bats and frog calls. Proc R Soc Lond B 272:841–847

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page RA, Ryan MJ (2008) The effect of signal complexity on localization performance in bats that localize frog calls. Anim Behav 76:761–769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phelps SM, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (2006) A cognitive framework for mate choice and species recognition. Am Nat 167:28–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piéron H (1913) Recherches sur les lois de variation des temps de latence sensorielle en fonction des intensités excitatrices. Ann Theor Psychol 20:17–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rand AS, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W (1992) Signal redundancy and receiver permissiveness in acoustic mate recognition by the Túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Am Zool 32:81–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliff R, McKoon G (2008) The diffusion decision model: theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Comput 20:873–922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reina A, Bose T, Trianni V, Marshall JAR (2018) Psychophysical laws and the superorganism. Sci Rep 8:4387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan MJ (1985) The Túngara frog, a study in sexual selection and communication. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan MJ, Rand AS (2003) Sexual selection in female perceptual space: how female túngara frogs perceive and respond to complex population variation in acoustic mating signals. Evolution 57:2608–2618

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan MJ, Tuttle MD, Rand AS (1982) Bat predation and sexual advertisement in a Neotropical anuran. Am Nat 119:136–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sasaki T, Pratt SC, Kacelnik A (2018) Parallel vs. comparative evaluation of alternative options by colonies and individuals of the ant Temnothorax rugatulus. Sci Rep 8:12730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheibehenne B, Greifeneder R, Todd PM (2010) Can there ever be too many options? A meta-analytic review of choice overload. J Consum Res 37:409–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seow S (2005) Information theoretic models of HCI: a comparison of the Hick-Hyman law and Fitts’ law. Hum Comput Interact 20:315–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafir S (1994) Intransitivity of preferences in honey bees: support for “comparative” evaluation of foraging options. Anim Behav 48:55–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shimp CP, Froehlich AL, Herbranson WT (2007) Information processing by pigeons (Columba livia): incentive as information. J Comp Psychol 121:73–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trimmer PC, Houston AI, Marshall JAR, Bogacz R, Paul ES, Mendl MT, McNamara JM (2008) Mammalian choices: combining fast-but-inaccurate and slow-but-accurate decision-making systems. Proc R Soc Lond B 275:2353–2361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuttle MD, Ryan MJ (1981) Bat predation and the evolution of frog vocalizations in the Neotropics. Science 214:677–678

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vasconcelos M, Monteiro T, Aw J, Kacelnik A (2010) Choice in multi-alternative environments: a trial-by-trial implementation of the sequential choice model. Behav Process 84:435–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasconcelos M, Monteiro T, Kacelnik A (2013) Context-dependent preferences in starlings: linking ecology, foraging and choice. PLoS One 8:e64934

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Michelle Nowak, Julia Wilson, Jenny Saunders, and Sash Ozeroff for their assistance in the field and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute for logistical support. We thank Sergio Castellano for his helpful comments on the manuscript. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their insightful suggestions on the manuscript.

Funding

Funding was provided by NSF grants IOB 0544096 and IOS 1120031.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Integrative Biology, University of Texas, Austin, TX, 78712, USA

    Claire T. Hemingway, Amanda M. Lea & Michael J. Ryan

  2. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Apartado 0843-03092, Balboa, Panama

    Claire T. Hemingway, Amanda M. Lea, Rachel A. Page & Michael J. Ryan

Authors
  1. Claire T. Hemingway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amanda M. Lea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rachel A. Page
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael J. Ryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AML and CTH conducted the experiments with the frogs and bats, respectively, and analyzed the data. MJR conceived of the study, RAP and MJR supervised this study, and all authors contributed to writing the manuscript. All authors of this manuscript have read and agreed on the content.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claire T. Hemingway.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

All experiments were approved by the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI IACUC, bats: 2014-0101-2017, frogs: STRI IACUC, 2009-0825-02), the University of Texas at Austin (bats: AUP-2015-00048, frogs: AUP-2011-00105), and the Government of Panama (Ministerio de Ambiente; bats: SE/A 69-15, frogs: SE/A-29-09).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Communicated by K. Summers

Publisher’s note

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

Claire T. Hemingway and Amanda M. Lea are co-first authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hemingway, C.T., Lea, A.M., Page, R.A. et al. Effects of information load on response times in frogs and bats: mate choice vs. prey choice. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 73, 111 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-019-2726-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-019-2726-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation