Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T10:59:50.467Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Methodological issues in modelling ecological learning with neural networks

from Part IV - Methodological issues in the use of simple feedforward networks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2011

Daniel W. Franks
Affiliation:
University of York
Graeme D. Ruxton
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow
Colin R. Tosh
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
Graeme D. Ruxton
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow
Get access

Summary

16.1 Introduction

A key attribute of all but the simplest organisms is an ability to modify their actions in the light of experience – that is to learn. This attribute allows individuals to adapt to rapidly changing environments. Learning is a fundamental aspect of animal behaviour (Barnard, 2003). One aspect of animal behaviour where learning has been particularly extensively studied is food gathering (see recent reviews by Adams-Hunt & Jacobs, 2007; Sherry & Mitchell, 2007; Stephens, 2007), and it is this aspect that we will focus on. We use the term ecological learning to describe an organism learning about its environment.

Neural network models are being used increasingly as effective tools for the description and study of animal behaviour (see Enquist & Ghirlanda, 2005 for a review). There are many different techniques that can be used to model animal learning, with Bayesian approaches being one such example. However, with the desire of taking advantage of neural networks' ability to generalise, neural networks have also been used to model stimulus learning in animals, and have even been used to examine the difference between neural network predators that evolve or learn (for example, see Kamo et al., 2002). In this paper we focus solely on the use of neural networks to represent ecological learning (such as a predator learning and generalising over prey) and argue that there are fundamental differences between the way neural network models are generally trained and the way organisms learn.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackley, D. & Littman, M. 1991. Interactions between learning and evolution. In Artificial Life II. Studies in the Sciences of Complexity (ed. Langton, C. G., Taylor, C., Farmer, J. D., and Rasmussen, S.). Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Adams-Hunt, M. M. & Jacobs, L. F. 2007. Cognition for Foraging. In Foraging: Behaviour and Ecology (ed. Stephens, D., Brown, J. & Ydenberg, R.), pp. 105–140. Chicago University Press.
Baldwin, M. J. 1896. A new factor in evolution. Am Naturalist 30, 441–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balogh, A. C. V. & Leimar, O. 2005. Müllerian mimicry: an examination of Fisher's theory of gradual evolutionary change. Proc R Soc B 272, 2269–2275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnard, C. 2003. Animal Behaviour. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Barto, A. J. 1995. Reinforcement learning. In The Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks (ed. Arbib, M.), pp. 804–809. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Enquist, M. & Ghirlanda, S. 2005. Neural Networks and Animal Behavior. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fahlman, S. E. 1988. Faster-learning variations on back-propagation: an empirical study. Proceedings of the 1988 Connectionist Models Summer School. Morgan-Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Franks, D. W. & Noble, J. 2004. Warning signals and predator-prey coevolution. Proc R Soc B 271, 1859–1866.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ghirlanda, S. & Enquist, M. 1998. Artificial neural networks as models of stimulus control. Anim Behav 56, 1383–1389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, B. A. 2006. Speciation by perception. Anim Behav 72, 139–146.Google Scholar
Ham, A. D., Ihalainen, E., Lindstrom, L. & Mappes, J. 2006. Does colour matter? The importance of colour in avoidance learning, memorability and generalisation. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60, 482–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinton, G. E. & Nowlan, S. J. 1987. How learning can guide evolution. Complex Syst 1, 495–502.Google Scholar
Ihalainen, E., Lindstrom, , L. & Mappes, J. 2007. Investigating Mullerian mimicry: predator learning and variation in prey defences. J Evol Biol 20, 780–791.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kamo, M., Ghirlanda, , S. & Enquist, M. 2002. The evolution of signal form: effects of learned versus inherited recognition. Proc R Soc B 269, 1765–1771.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mazzoni, P., Andersen, , R. A. & Jordan, M. I. 1991. A more biologically plausible learning rule for neural networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci US A 88, 4433–4437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riedmiller, M. & Braun, H. 1993. A direct adaptive method for faster backpropagation learning: the RPROP algorithm. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks.
Ruxton, G. D., Sherratt, T. N. & Speed, M. P. 2004. Avoiding Attack: The Evolutionary Ecology of Crypsis, Warning Signals and Mimicry. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherry, D. F. & Mitchell, J. B. 2007. Neuroethology of foraging. In Foraging: Behaviour and Ecology (ed. Stephens, D., Brown, J., and Ydenberg, R.), pp. 61–104. Chicago University Press.
Shettleworth, S. J. 1998. Cognition, Evolution and Behaviour. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skelhorn, J. & Rowe, C. 2005. Frequency-dependent taste-rejection by avian predation may select for defence chemical polymorphisms in aposematic prey. Biol Lett 1, 500–503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skelhorn, J. & Rowe, C. 2006a. Avian predators taste-reject aposematic prey on the basis of their chemical defence. Biol Lett 2, 348–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skelhorn, J. & Rowe, C. 2006b. Prey palatability influences predator learning and memory. Anim Behav 71, 1111–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, D. W. 2007. Models of information use. In Foraging: Behaviour and Ecology (ed. Stephens, D., Brown, J. & Ydenberg, R.), pp. 31–60. Chicago University Press.
Toquenaga, Y., Kajitani, , I. & Hoshino, T. 1995. Egrets of a feather flock together. Artific Life 1, 391–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×