A recent study published in the scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) revealed insights into group decision-making and teamwork between ants and humans. Researchers conducted experiments where both species were tasked with maneuvering a bulky, irregularly shaped object through a maze, shedding light on the advantages and disadvantages of individualism and collectivism.
The study, led by a team at the Weizmann Institute of Science, involved creating a real-world version of the computational problem known as the Piano Moving problem. This problem deals with the possible ways to move an irregularly shaped object, like a piano, from one point to another within an environment with obstacles. To test both ants and humans, the researchers designed a maze consisting of a narrow rectangular space divided into three chambers connected by two narrow slits. Participants had to maneuver a large T-shaped object through the maze.
Participants included ants of the species Paratrechina longicornis, commonly known as the Long-legged Ant or Crazy Ant due to their tendency to dash around. Humans also participated, divided into individuals, small groups of six to nine people, and larger groups of 16 to 26 participants.
To ensure comparability between the ants and humans, the researchers made several adjustments. The shape of the object and the geometry of the spaces were consistent across all teams; only the size varied to fit the different dimensions of ants and humans. Additionally, half of the human teams were instructed not to speak or gesture, and participants wore surgical masks and sunglasses to conceal their mouths and eyes, mimicking the communication limitations of ants.
The human participants were instructed to hold the load only by handles designed to imitate the way ants grasp objects. These handles contained meters that measured the pulling force applied by each person throughout the attempt. For the ants, the object was previously stored in cat food and smeared with tuna to motivate them to transport it through the two openings to their nest.
The experiments were repeated multiple times for each combination of participants. The researchers analyzed videos and tracking data using computer simulations and physics models to assess performance.
The results revealed a contrast between individual and group performances in both species. The cognitive abilities of humans gave them an edge in the individual challenge, where they resorted to calculated, strategic planning, easily outperforming the ants. However, in the group challenge, especially with larger groups, the picture was different. Groups of ants performed better than individual ants, with their abilities boosted in larger groups.
The ants demonstrated collective memory, maintaining a common direction of movement and avoiding repeated mistakes. They acted together in a calculated and strategic manner, demonstrating their social cognition. On the other hand, humans failed to improve their performance when acting in groups. In groups where communication was limited, performances deteriorated compared to individual or unrestricted group performances.
When communication among human group members was restricted to resemble that of ants, their performance dropped compared to that of individuals. Participants in groups with limited communication tended to choose "greedy" solutions—steps that seemed tempting in the short term but were inefficient in the long term.
"In contrast, group formation did not expand the cognitive abilities of humans. The famous 'wisdom of crowds,' which has become so popular in the age of social networks, did not come to the fore in our experiments," the authors stated, according to Mirage News.
The study involved collaboration between Dr. Ehud Fonio from Professor Ofer Feinerman's group in the Physics of Complex Systems Department at the Weizmann Institute, Professor Nir Gov from the Chemical and Biological Physics Department at Weizmann, Dr. Amir Haluts, and Professor Amos Korman from the University of Haifa.
This article was written in collaboration with generative AI company Alchemiq