ABSTRACT
We argue for the notion of adaptability in collective behavior, treating real fish schools as an example. For evaluation, we use the inconsistent relation between local and global perspectives. We show that this inconsistency would affect whole group behaviors and lead them to use different strategies.
- 1. D. J. T. Sumpter. Collective Animal Behavior. Princeton Press. 2010. Google ScholarCrossref
- 2. J. Krause, G. D. Ruxton. Living in Groups. Oxford University Press. 2002. Google Scholar
- 3. J.C. Letelier, G. Marin, J. Mpodozis, Autopoietic and (M, R) systems. J. Theor. Biol. 222, 261–272. 2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5193(03)00034-1, Google ScholarCrossref
- 4. J.A. Fernandez-Leon, G.G. Acosta and A. Rozenfeld. How simple autonomous decisions evolve into robust behaviours?: A review from neurorobotics, cognitive, self-organized and artificial immune systems fields. 124. 7–20. 2014. Google Scholar
- 5. A. Chemero. Radical Embodied Cognitive Science. MTI Press. 2011. Google Scholar
- 6. I.D. Couzin, J. Krause, R. James, G.D. Ruxtion, N.R. Franks. Collective Memory and Spatial Sorting in Animal Groups. J. theor. Biol. 218:1–11. 2002. https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.2002.3065, Google ScholarCrossref
- 7. T. Niizato, H. Murakami, K. Sangu, T. Tomaru, Y. Nishiyama, K. Sonoda and Y. Gunji. Difference in the searching strategy of Plecoglossusaltivelis between single individuals and groups. Proceedings of SWARM 20I5: The First International Symposium on Swarm Behavior and Bio-Inspired Robotics. 2015. Google Scholar
Please Note: The number of views represents the full text views from December 2016 to date. Article views prior to December 2016 are not included.
