Ation of the two coral TGR-1202 dose patches with a piece of coral skeleton in the centre of each patch. The image shows three fish on the right side of the tank and about to cross into the left side, while another fish has just crossed over and into the left side. The dashed line indicates the previous position of the central divider (and centre of the tank) which was removed after 5 min of fish acclimation, allowing the fish to move between patches.responses are consistent with many different types of cuefollowing behaviour [11,20]. Similarly, mechanisms akin to voting have been observed in relatively small groups where all members can observe each other [21 ?3]. But in these groups, how local is the range of communication between individuals both spatially and temporally? If interactions are local, what specific cues do animals pay attention to? Identifying which cues individuals respond to is an important step in understanding how and why animals make these decisions. Determining the nature of these cues is however nontrivial. When individuals respond to the cues produced by nearby conspecifics, then the decision by one individual to make a particular choice or engage in a particular activity affects the choice of others. This decision, in turn, affects how successive individuals will chose one or the other options. These decision sequences make it difficult to identify the cues used by individuals, because different elements of the social environment are highly correlated over time. For example, consider a situation where at time t a focal fish has one neighbour to its left and one to its right and then shortly afterwards, at time t ?1, both of its neighbours have moved to be on its left-hand side. We then observe at time t ?2 that our focal fish turns left. The question is whether it is the dynamic movement of the neighbour between timesteps t and t ?1 or whether it is the static arrangement of neighbours at time t ?1 which are critical in determining the focal fish turning at t ?2. In other words, whether each individual pays attention to the current positions/behaviours of each available conspecific or gives greater weight to recent changes of behaviour. This sketched example does not provide a sufficient level of description to address this question directly, but it exemplifies the general problem of correlation of cues. Because static and dynamic cues can be highly correlated, it is possible that responses to dynamical cues may produce a significant relationship between decisions and static information, and vice versa. Furthermore, a continuum exists between static and dynamic responses which will ultimately depend on the memory window of the animal. Animals may use both these forms of information to inform their decisions. Teasing apart this correlation and identifying the sources of information and cues used by individuals is the challenge we address here. Previous studies investigating the role of social information in a variety of species have focused on the static cues provided by conspecifics at the moment when an individual makes its decision to move, in groups of fish [14,15,24], mammals [21,25,26], birds [27,28] and insects [29,30]. Such static information can, for example, take the form of the positions of conspecifics, the number of individuals standing/sitting, the amount of noise being made by other individuals or the directions of their gazes [21]. A Y-27632MedChemExpress Y-27632 smaller number of studies have investigated cues more akin to dynamical infor.Ation of the two coral patches with a piece of coral skeleton in the centre of each patch. The image shows three fish on the right side of the tank and about to cross into the left side, while another fish has just crossed over and into the left side. The dashed line indicates the previous position of the central divider (and centre of the tank) which was removed after 5 min of fish acclimation, allowing the fish to move between patches.responses are consistent with many different types of cuefollowing behaviour [11,20]. Similarly, mechanisms akin to voting have been observed in relatively small groups where all members can observe each other [21 ?3]. But in these groups, how local is the range of communication between individuals both spatially and temporally? If interactions are local, what specific cues do animals pay attention to? Identifying which cues individuals respond to is an important step in understanding how and why animals make these decisions. Determining the nature of these cues is however nontrivial. When individuals respond to the cues produced by nearby conspecifics, then the decision by one individual to make a particular choice or engage in a particular activity affects the choice of others. This decision, in turn, affects how successive individuals will chose one or the other options. These decision sequences make it difficult to identify the cues used by individuals, because different elements of the social environment are highly correlated over time. For example, consider a situation where at time t a focal fish has one neighbour to its left and one to its right and then shortly afterwards, at time t ?1, both of its neighbours have moved to be on its left-hand side. We then observe at time t ?2 that our focal fish turns left. The question is whether it is the dynamic movement of the neighbour between timesteps t and t ?1 or whether it is the static arrangement of neighbours at time t ?1 which are critical in determining the focal fish turning at t ?2. In other words, whether each individual pays attention to the current positions/behaviours of each available conspecific or gives greater weight to recent changes of behaviour. This sketched example does not provide a sufficient level of description to address this question directly, but it exemplifies the general problem of correlation of cues. Because static and dynamic cues can be highly correlated, it is possible that responses to dynamical cues may produce a significant relationship between decisions and static information, and vice versa. Furthermore, a continuum exists between static and dynamic responses which will ultimately depend on the memory window of the animal. Animals may use both these forms of information to inform their decisions. Teasing apart this correlation and identifying the sources of information and cues used by individuals is the challenge we address here. Previous studies investigating the role of social information in a variety of species have focused on the static cues provided by conspecifics at the moment when an individual makes its decision to move, in groups of fish [14,15,24], mammals [21,25,26], birds [27,28] and insects [29,30]. Such static information can, for example, take the form of the positions of conspecifics, the number of individuals standing/sitting, the amount of noise being made by other individuals or the directions of their gazes [21]. A smaller number of studies have investigated cues more akin to dynamical infor.