Abstract: Despite the abundant empirical evidence on lateralized social behaviours, a clear understanding of the relative roles of two brain hemispheres in social processing is still lacking. This study investigated visual lateralization in social interactions of free-ranging European bison (Bison bonasus). The bison were more likely to display aggressive responses (such as fight and side hit), when they viewed the conspecific with the right visual field, implicating the left brain hemisphere. In contrast, the responses associated with positive social interactions (female-to-calf bonding, calf-to-female approach, suckling) or aggression inhibition (fight termination) occurred more likely when the left visual field was in use, indicating the right hemisphere advantage. The results do not support either assumptions of right-hemisphere dominance for control of various social functions or hypotheses about simple positive (approach) versus negative (withdrawal) distinction between the hemispheric roles. The discrepancy between the studies suggests that in animals, the relative roles of the hemispheres in social processing may be determined by a fine balance of emotions and motivations associated with the particular social reaction difficult to categorize for a human investigator. Our findings highlight the involvement of both brain hemispheres in the control of social behaviour.

Abstract: In two experiments cats acquired a stimulus-controlled approach or avoidance response by observational or conventional shaping procedures. Observer cats acquired the avoidance response (hurdle jumping in response to a buzzer stimulus) significantly faster and made fewer errors than cats that were conventionally trained. Observer cats acquired the approach response (lever pressing for food in response to a light stimulus) with significantly fewer errors than cats that were conventionally trained. In some cases, observer cats committed one or no errors while reaching criterion.

Abstract: Despite numerous attempts to define animal tool use over the past four decades, the definition remains elusive and the behaviour classification somewhat subjective. Here, we provide a brief review of the definitions of animal tool use and show how those definitions have been modified over time. While some aspects have remained constant (i.e., the distinction between 'true' and 'borderline' tool use), others have been added (i.e., the distinction between 'dynamic' and 'static' behaviours). We present an updated, comprehensive catalog of documented animal tool use that indicates whether the behaviours observed included any 'true' tool use, whether the observations were limited to captive animals, whether tool manufacture has been observed, and whether the observed tool use was limited to only one individual and, thus, 'anecdotal' (i.e., N = 1). Such a catalog has not been attempted since Beck (1980). In addition to being a useful reference for behaviourists, this catalog demonstrates broad tool use and manufacture trends that may be of interest to phylogenists, evolutionary ecologists, and cognitive evolutionists. Tool use and tool manufacture are shown to be widespread across three phyla and seven classes of the animal kingdom. Moreover, there is complete overlap between the Aves and Mammalia orders in terms of the tool use categories (e.g., food extraction, food capture, agonism) arguing against any special abilities of mammals. The majority of tool users, almost 85% of the entries, use tools in only one of the tool use categories. Only members of the Passeriformes and Primates orders have been observed to use tools in four or more of the ten categories. Thus, observed tool use by some members of these two orders (e.g., Corvus, Papio) is qualitatively different from that of all other animal taxa. Finally, although there are similarities between Aves and Mammalia, and Primates and Passeriformes, primate tool use is qualitatively different. Approximately 35% of the entries for this order demonstrate a breadth of tool use (i.e., three or more categories by any one species) compared to other mammals (0%), Aves (2.4%), and the Passeriformes (3.1%). This greater breadth in tool use by some organisms may involve phylogenetic or cognitive differences � or may simply reflect differences in length and intensity of observations. The impact that tool usage may have had on groups' respective ecological niches and, through niche-construction, on their respective evolutionary trajectories remains a subject for future study.