Abstract: Mirror Self-Recognition (MSR) is an extremely rare capacity in the animal kingdom that reveals the emergence of complex cognitive capacities (de Waal 2008). So far, MSR has been reported only in humans, chimpanzees (Gallup, 1970), bottlenose dolphins (Reiss and Marino, 2001) and Asian elephants (Plotnik et al, 2006), all species characterized by a highly developed cognition. There is growing evidence that domestic horses posses high cognitive abilities, such as cross-modal individual recognition (Proops et al, 2009), triadic post-conflict reunion to maintain social homeostasis (Cozzi et al, 2010), complex communicative systems (Whatan and McComb, 2014), flexibility in problem-solving (Lovrovich et al, 2015), and long-term memory (Hanggi and Ingersoll, 2009). All these capacities make horses a good candidate to test the ability of MSR in a domestic species. Through a classical MSR experimental paradigm (de Waal 2008) we tested eight horses living in social groups under semi-natural conditions (from the Italian Horse Protection rescue centre). Animals showing MSR typically go through four stages (Plotnik et al, 2006): (i) social response, (ii) physical mirror inspection (e.g., looking behind the mirror), (iii) repetitive mirror-testing behaviour (i.e., the beginning of mirror understanding), and (iv) self-directed behaviour (i.e., recognition of the mirror image as self). The final stage, known as the “mark-test”, is verified when a subject spontaneously uses the mirror to check for a coloured artificial mark on its own body which it cannot perceive otherwise. The horses underwent a three-phase “mark-test”: 1) with sham mark (transparent ultrasound water gel) positioned on both side at jaw level, 2) mark (yellow eye shadow mixed with ultrasound water gel) positioned on left side of jaw (with sham mark on the right), 3) mark (yellow eye shadow mixed with ultrasound water gel) positioned on right side of jaw (with sham mark on the left)
The mirror was one 0.5-cm-thick piece of 140x220-cm plexiglass glue on wood. Each test lasted one hour, horses were tested once a day, in consecutive days and at the same time. Our preliminary result on 1 horse shows some changes in self-directed behaviours which can be attributed to presence of the coloured mark. Firstly, the presence of the coloured mark significantly increased the frequency of scratching on both sides of the muzzle (p < 0.0001). The most intriguing result (p < 0.0001) comes from the comparison of the scratching rates directed towards the coloured mark side (N = 41) and the sham mark side (N = 23). Under the control condition (i.e. sham mark on both sides) no statistical difference was found for the scratching rates directed to the muzzle sides (dx N = 8; sx N = 5). Although further analyses are needed to confirm these preliminary results, our finding opens new scenarios about the evolution of Mirror Self-Recognition. The capacity of horses to recognize themselves in a mirror may be the outcome of an evolutionary convergence process driven by the cognitive pressures imposed by a complex social system and maintained despite thousands years of domestication.
Keywords:
Domestic horse · Mark test · Socio-cognitive skills · Self-awareness
References
De Waal FBM (2008) The thief in the mirror. PloS Biol 6(8):e201
Gallup GG Jr (1970) Chimpanzees: Self-recognition. Science 167: 86-87.
Reiss D, Marino L (2001). Mirror self-recognition in the bottlenose dolphin: A case of cognitive convergence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98:5937-5942.
Plotnik J, de Waal FBM, Reiss D (2006) Self-recognition in an Asian elephant. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103: 17053-17057.
Proops L, McComb K, Reby D. (2009) Cross-modal individual recognition in domestic horses (Equus caballus). Proc Nat Acad Sci USA;106:947-951.
Cozzi A, Sighieri C, Gazzano A, Nicol CJ, Baragli P. Post-conflict friendly reunion in a permanent group of horses (Equus caballus). Behav Process 2010;85:185-190.
Wathan J, McComb K. The eyes and ears are visual indicators of attention in domestic horses. Curr Biol 2014;24(15): R677-R679.
Lovrovich P, Sighieri C, Baragli P (2015) Following human-given cues or not? Horses (Equus caballus) get smarter and change strategy in a delayed three choice task. Appl Anim Behav Sci, in press.
Hanggi EB, Ingersoll JF. (2009) Long-term memory for categories and concepts in horses (Equus caballus). Anim Cogn; 12:451-462.

Abstract: Most horses are trained by negative reinforcement. Currently, however, no standardised test for evaluating horses' negative reinforcement learning ability is available. The aim of this study was to develop an objective test to investigate negative reinforcement learning in horses. Twenty-four Icelandic horses (3 years old) were included in this study. The horses were tested in a pressure-release task on three separate days with 10, 7 and 5 trials on each side, respectively. Each trial consisted of pressure being applied on the hindquarter with an algometer. The force of the pressure was increased until the horse moved laterally away from the point of pressure. There was a significant decrease in required force over trials on the first test day (P<0.001), but not the second and third day. The intercepts on days 2 and 3 differed significantly from day 1 (P<0.001), but not each other. Significantly stronger force was required on the right side compared to the left (P<0.001), but there was no difference between first and second side tested (P=0.56). Individual performance was evaluated by median-force and the change in force over trials on the first test day. These two measures may explain different characteristics of negative reinforcement learning. In conclusion, this study presents a novel, standardised test for evaluating negative reinforcement learning ability in horses.

Abstract: For communicating with the environment (other horses, foals, owner, etc.), horses have to use different methods. In contrast with the human, for whom talking is the most important way of communication, the horses can’t talk. In the years 1990s and before, the imagination was such that the infants do not express verbally to the pain either (like horses).
To communicate, horses use their body language. Vocalization (if not the body language), seems to be the most important way of communication in horses, though it seems they use the same tone when exposing to different events.
In this study which was performed in collaboration with the electronic institute of Sharif technical university (the top most technical university of the country), totally 25 horses were used. The horses were exposed to different events (hunger, pain, loneliness, mating, parturition and separation of the 1-2 weeks old foals from their dams). The verbal expressions of the horses were studied using spectrogram.
The results of this study showed that there were significant differences between the spectrograph of the voices of the horses, exposed to hunger, and the separation of the foals from dams. This was the same (no significant differences) when horses were exposed to loneliness, separation and hunger. There were no significant differences between the verbal expressions of the horses while exposed to mating, parturition.
One of the most important reasons why the horses do not have verbal expressions when exposing to the pain, might be the absence of the part of the brain, responsible for the pain interpretation. Morse research has to be performed to prove this.