Rogers (2000, Brain and Language, 73, 236-253) suggested that the ubiquity of cerebral lateralization could be explained by the advantages it provides to individuals in coping with two simultaneous tasks, because in lateralized individuals each task could be carried out by a different hemisphere. To test this hypothesis, we compared lateralized and nonlateralized fish, obtained through selective breeding, in a situation requiring the sharing of attention between two simultaneous tasks, prey capture and predator vigilance. Food-deprived individual Girardinus falcatus had to enter a compartment adjacent to the home tank to capture live brine shrimps either in the presence or in the absence of a live predator placed at some distance. When no hazard was present, lateralized and nonlateralized fish did not differ in rate of prey capture. However, when the predator was visible, lateralized fish were twice as fast at catching shrimps as were nonlateralized fish. A fine analysis of fish movements revealed that lateralized fish tended to monitor the predator with one eye and to use the other eye for catching prey, whereas nonlateralized fish swapped between tasks, using each eye for both functions.

Does brain asymmetry allow efficient performance of simultaneous tasks?

DADDA, MARCO;BISAZZA, ANGELO
2006

Abstract

Rogers (2000, Brain and Language, 73, 236-253) suggested that the ubiquity of cerebral lateralization could be explained by the advantages it provides to individuals in coping with two simultaneous tasks, because in lateralized individuals each task could be carried out by a different hemisphere. To test this hypothesis, we compared lateralized and nonlateralized fish, obtained through selective breeding, in a situation requiring the sharing of attention between two simultaneous tasks, prey capture and predator vigilance. Food-deprived individual Girardinus falcatus had to enter a compartment adjacent to the home tank to capture live brine shrimps either in the presence or in the absence of a live predator placed at some distance. When no hazard was present, lateralized and nonlateralized fish did not differ in rate of prey capture. However, when the predator was visible, lateralized fish were twice as fast at catching shrimps as were nonlateralized fish. A fine analysis of fish movements revealed that lateralized fish tended to monitor the predator with one eye and to use the other eye for catching prey, whereas nonlateralized fish swapped between tasks, using each eye for both functions.
2006
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11577/2432355
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 135
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact