Ethologists usually study feeding behavior of rats and animal behavior in general mainly at population level [1,2,3,4,5] and emphasize aspects of intra-colonial learning and inter-individual informational exchange. Therefore, studies of intra-individual strategies and inner structure of behavior are less frequent [10,12]. In most of such studies, classification systems and mathematical data processing of sequences as units of behavior, are based on the researcher's own operational system [5,6,8,9,11]. In our experiment on feeding behavior at laboratory rats, we first tried to adapt the taxonomic systems used by some authors [2,5,7,8,10], to a functional goal-oriented perspective. Secondly, we applied methods used in sociometry [13,14]and social psychology to the analysis of behavior sequential chains, which we have represented by transition matrices of dyad successions. We found parameters that reflect the dynamics of learning process and can be used as indicators of sexual behavioral dimorphism. On the other hand, these parameters support a 'structuralist' view of behavior. According to this view, one can consider a sequential chain as a 'syntagm' and therefore, look for its inner 'grammar'; i.e. its internal regularity that should transcend inter-individual differences of strategy.

References

1. Acroff, K.; Schwartz, D.; Collier, G. (1986). Macronutrient selection by foraging rats. Physiology & Behavior, 38, 71-80.
2. Barnett, S.A. (1958). Experiments in "neophobia" in wild and laboratory rats. British Journal of Physiology, 49, 195-201.
3. Beck, M.; Hitchock, C.L.; Galef, B.G. (1988). Diet sampling by wild Norway rats offered several unfamiliar foods. Animal Learning & Behavior, 16, 224-230.
4. Berdoy, M.; Macdonald, D.W. (1991). Factors affecting feeding in wild rats. Acta Oecologica, 12, 261-279.
5. Castonguay, T.W.; Kaiser, L.L.; Stern, J.S. (1986). Meal pattern analysis: artifacts, assumptions and implications. Brain Research Bulletin, 17, 429-443.
6. Coppola, D.M.; Millar, L.C. (1997). Olfactio in utero: Behavioral studies of the mouse fetus. Behavioral Processes, 39, 53-68.
7. Grant, E.C. (1963). An analysis of the social behavior of the male laboratory rat. Behaviour, 21, 260-281.
8. Grant, E.C.; Mackintosh, J.H. (1963). A comparison of the social postures of some common laboratory rodents. Behaviour, 21, 260-281.
9. Leathwood, P.D.; Ashley, D.V. (1984). Behavior strategies in the regulation of food choice. Experientia, 44, 171-196.
10. Lehman, M.N.; Adams, D.B. (1979). A statistical and motivational analysis of the social behavior of the male laboratory rat. Behaviour, 61, 238-274.
11. McNamara, J.M.; Houston, A.I. (1986). The common currency for behavioral decisions. American Naturalist, 127, 358-378.
12. Peck, J.W. (1978). Rats defend different body weights depending on palatability and accessibility of their food. Journal of Comparative Physiology and Psychology, 92, 555-570.
13. Shannon, C.E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bull. Sys. Tech. J., 27, 379-423, 623-656.
14. Smotherman, W.P.; Robinson, S.R. (1988). Behavior of rat fetuses following chemical on tactile stimulation. Behavioral Neuroscience, 102, 24-34.

© 2000 Noldus Information Technology b.v.