Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-92wsb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-18T17:51:59.699Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Model-based decision-making in fish: a dilemma for the extended-sensory-horizons hypothesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2026

Xiaohui Yu Open the ORCID record for Xiaohui Yu [Opens in a new window]  and
Peter Carruthers Open the ORCID record for Peter Carruthers [Opens in a new window]
Xiaohui Yu
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, The University of Maryland, Maryland, USA xhyu@umd.edu pcarruth@umd.edu https://faculty.philosophy.umd.edu/pcarruthers/
Peter Carruthers*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, The University of Maryland, Maryland, USA xhyu@umd.edu pcarruth@umd.edu https://faculty.philosophy.umd.edu/pcarruthers/
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The target article conflates simple (“System 1”) model-based decision-making with reflective/imaginative (“System 2”) sorts. We show that most species of fish are capable of the former, which seems all that would be necessary for slow ventral-system-like vision to evolve. Since land-based predator-avoidance, too, may require only the former, there is no sharp distinction between aquatic and land-based life-forms.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 49 , 2026 , e196
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Agrillo, C., & Bisazza, A. (2017). Understanding the origin of number sense: A review of fish studies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 373, 20160511.10.1098/rstb.2016.0511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dadda, M., Piffer, L., Agrillo, C., & Bisazza, A. (2009). Spontaneous number representation in mosquitofish. Cognition, 112, 343–348.10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dehaene, S. (2011). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dugatkin, L. (1992). Sexual selection and imitation: Females copy the mate choice of others. The American Naturalist, 139, 1384–1389.10.1086/285392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dugatkin, L. & Godin, J-G. (1992). Reversal of female mate choice by copying in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 249, 179–184.Google ScholarPubMed
Grossman, G., Rincon, P., Farr, M., & Ratajczak, R. (2002). A new optimal foraging model predicts habitat use by drift-feeding stream minnows. Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 11, 2–10.10.1034/j.1600-0633.2002.110102.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehlis, M., Thünken, T., Bakker, T., & Frommen, J. (2015). Quantification acuity in spontaneous shoaling decisions of three-spined sticklebacks. Animal Cognition, 18, 1125–1131.10.1007/s10071-015-0884-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milner, D., & Goodale, M. (1995). The visual brain in action. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Piffer, L., Miletto Petrazzini, M., & Agrillo, C. (2013). Large number discrimination in newborn fish. PLoS ONE, 8, e62466.10.1371/journal.pone.0062466CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wade, M., & Pruett-Jones, S. (1990). Female copying increases the variance in male-mating success. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 87, 5749–5753.10.1073/pnas.87.15.5749CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Werner, E., & Mittelbach, G. (1981). Optimal foraging: Field tests of diet choice and habitat switching. American Zoologist, 21, 813–829.10.1093/icb/21.4.813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witte, K., & Ryan, M. (2002). Mate choice copying in the sailfin molly, Poecilia latipinna, in the wild. Animal Behavior, 63, 943–949.10.1006/anbe.2001.1982CrossRefGoogle Scholar