|
|
Griffin, D. R. (2001). Animals know more than we used to think (Vol. 98).
|
|
|
|
Hoy, R. (2005). Animal awareness: The (un)binding of multisensory cues in decision making by animals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 102(7), 2267–2268.
|
|
|
|
Wich, S. A., & de Vries, H. (2006). Male monkeys remember which group members have given alarm calls. Proc Biol Sci, 273(1587), 735–740.
Abstract: Primates give alarm calls in response to the presence of predators. In some species, such as the Thomas langur (Presbytis thomasi), males only emit alarm calls if there is an audience. An unanswered question is whether the audience's behaviour influences how long the male will continue his alarm calling. We tested three hypotheses that might explain the alarm calling duration of male Thomas langurs: the fatigue, group size and group member behaviour hypotheses. Fatigue and group size did not influence male alarm calling duration. We found that males only ceased calling shortly after all individuals in his group had given at least one alarm call. This shows that males keep track of and thus remember which group members have called.
|
|
|
|
Liebal, K., Pika, S., & Tomasello, M. (2004). Social communication in siamangs (Symphalangus syndactylus): use of gestures and facial expressions. Primates, 45(1), 41–57.
Abstract: The current study represents the first systematic investigation of the social communication of captive siamangs (Symphalangus syndactylus). The focus was on intentional signals, including tactile and visual gestures, as well as facial expressions and actions. Fourteen individuals from different groups were observed and the signals used by individuals were recorded. Thirty-one different signals, consisting of 12 tactile gestures, 8 visual gestures, 7 actions, and 4 facial expressions, were observed, with tactile gestures and facial expressions appearing most frequently. The range of the signal repertoire increased steadily until the age of six, but declined afterwards in adults. The proportions of the different signal categories used within communicative interactions, in particular actions and facial expressions, also varied depending on age. Group differences could be traced back mainly to social factors or housing conditions. Differences in the repertoire of males and females were most obvious in the sexual context. Overall, most signals were used flexibly, with the majority performed in three or more social contexts and almost one-third of signals used in combination with other signals. Siamangs also adjusted their signals appropriately for the recipient, for example, using visual signals most often when the recipient was already attending (audience effects). These observations are discussed in the context of siamang ecology, social structure, and cognition.
|
|
|
|
Poti, P. (2005). Chimpanzees' constructional praxis (Pan paniscus, P. troglodytes). Primates, 46(2), 103–113.
Abstract: This study investigated chimpanzees' spontaneous spatial constructions with objects and especially their ability to repeat inter-object spatial relations, which is basic to understanding spatial relations at a higher level than perception or recognition. Subjects were six chimpanzees-four chimpanzees and two bonobos-aged 6-21 years, all raised in a human environment from an early age. Only minor species differences, but considerable individual differences were found. The effect of different object samples was assessed through a comparison with a previous study. A common overall chimpanzee pattern was also found. Chimpanzees repeated different types of inter-object spatial relations such as insertion (I), or vertical (V), or next-to (H) relations. However chimpanzees repeated I or V relations with more advanced procedures than when repeating H relations. Moreover, chimpanzees never repeated combined HV relations. Compared with children, chimpanzees showed a specific difficulty in repeating H relations. Repeating H relations is crucial for representing and understanding multiple reciprocal spatial relations between detached elements and for coordinating independent positions in space. Therefore, the chimpanzees' difficulty indicates a fundamental difference in constructive space in comparison to humans. The findings are discussed in relation to issues of spatial cognition and tool use.
|
|
|
|
Heschl, A., & Burkart, J. (2006). A new mark test for mirror self-recognition in non-human primates. Primates, 47(3), 187–198.
Abstract: For 30 years Gallup's (Science 167:86-87, 1970) mark test, which consists of confronting a mirror-experienced test animal with its own previously altered mirror image, usually a color mark on forehead, eyebrow or ear, has delivered valuable results about the distribution of visual self-recognition in non-human primates. Chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans and, less frequently, gorillas can learn to correctly understand the reflection of their body in a mirror. However, the standard version of the mark test is good only for positively proving the existence of self-recognition. Conclusive statements about the lack of self-recognition are more difficult because of the methodological constraints of the test. This situation has led to a persistent controversy about the power of Gallup's original technique. We devised a new variant of the test which permits more unequivocal decisions about both the presence and absence of self-recognition. This new procedure was tested with marmoset monkeys (Callithrix jacchus), following extensive training with mirror-related tasks to facilitate performance in the standard mark test. The results show that a slightly altered mark test with a new marking substance (chocolate cream) can help to reliably discriminate between true negative results, indicating a real lack of ability to recognize oneself in a mirror, from false negative results that are due to methodological particularities of the standard test. Finally, an evolutionary hypothesis is put forward as to why many primates can use a mirror instrumentally – i.e. know how to use it for grasping at hidden objects – while failing in the decisive mark test.
|
|
|
|
Epstein, R. (1985). Animal cognition as the praxist views it. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 9(4), 623–630.
Abstract: The distinction between psychology and praxics provides a clear answer to the question of animal cognition. As Griffin and others have noted, the kinds of behavioral phenomena that lead psychologists to speak of cognition in humans are also observed in nonhuman animals, and therefore those who are convinced of the legitimacy of psychology should not hesitate to speak of and to attempt to study animal cognition. The behavior of organisms is also a legitimate subject matter, and praxics, the study of behavior, has led to significant advances in our understanding of the kinds of behaviors that lead psychologists to speak of cognition. Praxics is a biological science; the attempt by students of behavior to appropriate psychology has been misguided. Generativity theory is an example of a formal theory of behavior that has proved useful both in the engineering of intelligent performances in nonhuman animals and in the prediction of intelligent performances in humans.
|
|
|
|
Gallup, G. G. J. (1985). Do minds exist in species other than our own? Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 9(4), 631–641.
Abstract: An answer to the question of animal awareness depends on evidence, not intuition, anecdote, or debate. This paper examines some of the problems inherent in an analysis of animal awareness, and whether animals might be aware of being aware is offered as a more meaningful distinction. A framework is presented which can be used to make a determination about the extent to which other species have experiences similar to ours based on their ability to make inferences and attributions about mental states in others. The evidence from both humans and animals is consistent with the idea that the capacity to use experience to infer the experience of others is a byproduct of self-awareness.
|
|
|
|
Blokland, A. (1998). Reaction time responding in rats. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 22(6), 847–864.
Abstract: The use of reaction time has a great tradition in the field of human information processing research. In animal research the use of reaction time test paradigms is mainly limited to two research fields: the role of the striatum in movement initiation; and aging. It was discussed that reaction time responding can be regarded as “single behavior”, this term was used to indicate that only one behavioral category is measured, allowing a better analysis of brain-behavior relationships. Reaction time studies investigating the role of the striatum in motor functions revealed that the initiation of a behavioral response is dependent on the interaction of different neurotransmitters (viz. dopamine, glutamate, GABA). Studies in which lesions were made in different brain structures suggested that motor initiation is dependent on defined brain structures (e.g. medialldorsal striatum, prefrontal cortex). It was concluded that the use of reaction time measures can indeed be a powerful tool in studying brain-behavior relationships. However, there are some methodological constraints with respect to the assessment of reaction time in rats, as was tried to exemplify by the experiments described in the present paper. On the one hand one should try to control for behavioral characteristics of rats that may affect the validity of the parameter reaction time. On the other hand, the mean value of reaction time should be in the range of what has been reported in man. Although these criteria were not always met in several studies, it was concluded that reaction time can be validly assessed in rats. Finally, it was discussed that the use of reaction time may go beyond studies that investigate the role of the basal ganglia in motor output. Since response latency is a direct measure of information processing this parameter may provide insight into basic elements of cognition. Based on the significance of reaction times in human studies the use of this dependent variable in rats may provide a fruitful approach in studying brain-behavior relationships in cognitive functions.
|
|
|
|
Milgram, N. W., Head, E., Muggenburg, B., Holowachuk, D., Murphey, H., Estrada, J., et al. (2002). Landmark discrimination learning in the dog: effects of age, an antioxidant fortified food, and cognitive strategy. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 26(6), 679–695.
Abstract: The landmark discrimination learning test can be used to assess the ability to utilize allocentric spatial information to locate targets. The present experiments examined the role of various factors on performance of a landmark discrimination learning task in beagle dogs. Experiments 1 and 2 looked at the effects of age and food composition. Experiments 3 and 4 were aimed at characterizing the cognitive strategies used in performance on this task and in long-term retention. Cognitively equivalent groups of old and young dogs were placed into either a test group maintained on food enriched with a broad-spectrum of antioxidants and mitochondrial cofactors, or a control group maintained on a complete and balanced food formulated for adult dogs. Following a wash-in period, the dogs were tested on a series of problems, in which reward was obtained when the animal responded selectively to the object closest to a thin wooden block, which served as a landmark. In Experiment 1, dogs were first trained to respond to a landmark placed directly on top of coaster, landmark 0 (L0). In the next phase of testing, the landmark was moved at successively greater distances (1, 4 or 10 cm) away from the reward object. Learning varied as a function of age group, food group, and task. The young dogs learned all of the tasks more quickly than the old dogs. The aged dogs on the enriched food learned L0 significantly more rapidly than aged dogs on control food. A higher proportion of dogs on the enriched food learned the task, when the distance was increased to 1cm. Experiment 2 showed that accuracy decreased with increased distance between the reward object and landmark, and this effect was greater in old animals. Experiment 3 showed stability of performance, despite using a novel landmark, and new locations, indicating that dogs learned the landmark concept. Experiment 4 found age impaired long-term retention of the landmark task. These results indicate that allocentric spatial learning is impaired in an age-dependent manner in dogs, and that age also affects performance when the distance between the landmark and target is increased. In addition, these results both support a role of oxidative damage in the development of age-associated cognitive dysfunction and indicate that short-term administration of a food enriched with supplemental antioxidants and mitochondrial cofactors can partially reverse the deleterious effects of aging on cognition.
|
|
