|
Healy, S. D., & Rowe, C. (2013). Costs and benefits of evolving a larger brain: doubts over the evidence that large brains lead to better cognition. Anim Behav, 86.
|
|
|
Range, F., Möslinger, H., & Virányi, Z. (2012). Domestication has not affected the understanding of means-end connections in dogs. Anim Cogn, 15.
|
|
|
Devinsky, O., Boesch, J. M., Cerda-Gonzalez, S., Coffey, B., Davis, K., Friedman, D., et al. (2018). A cross-species approach to disorders affecting brain and behaviour. Nature Reviews Neurology, .
Abstract: Structural and functional elements of biological systems are highly conserved across vertebrates. Many neurological and psychiatric conditions affect both humans and animals. A cross-species approach to the study of brain and behaviour can advance our understanding of human disorders via the identification of unrecognized natural models of spontaneous disorders, thus revealing novel factors that increase vulnerability or resilience, and via the assessment of potential therapies. Moreover, diagnostic and therapeutic advances in human neurology and psychiatry can often be adapted for veterinary patients. However, clinical and research collaborations between physicians and veterinarians remain limited, leaving this wealth of comparative information largely untapped. Here, we review pain, cognitive decline syndromes, epilepsy, anxiety and compulsions, autoimmune and infectious encephalitides and mismatch disorders across a range of animal species, looking for novel insights with translational potential. This comparative perspective can help generate novel hypotheses, expand and improve clinical trials and identify natural animal models of disease resistance and vulnerability.
|
|
|
Albiach-Serrano, A., Bräuer, J., Cacchione, T., Zickert, N., & Amici, F. (2012). The effect of domestication and ontogeny in swine cognition (Sus scrofa scrofa and S. s. domestica). Appl Anim Behav Sci, 141.
|
|
|
Van Horik, J., Clayton, N., & Emery, N. Oxford Handbook of Comparative Evolutionary Psychology (J. Vonk, & T. Shackelford, Eds.). New York: Oxford University Press.
|
|
|
Langbein, J., Siebert, K., & Nuernberg, G. (2008). Concurrent recall of serially learned visual discrimination problems in dwarf goats (Capra hircus). Behav Proc, 79.
|
|
|
Squire, L. (2004). Memory systems of the brain: a brief history and current perspective. Neurobiol Learn Mem, 82.
|
|
|
Meddock, T., & Osborn, D. (1968). Neophobia in wild and laboratory mice. Psychol Sci, 12.
|
|
|
Galef, B. G. (2013). Imitation and local enhancement: Detrimental effects of consensus definitions on analyses of social learning in animals. Behavioural Processes, 100, 123–130.
Abstract: Development of a widely accepted vocabulary referring to various types of social learning has made important contributions to decades of progress in analyzing the role of socially acquired information in the development of behavioral repertoires. It is argued here that emergence of a consensus vocabulary, while facilitating both communication and research, has also unnecessarily restricted research on social learning. The article has two parts. In the first, I propose that Thorndike, 1898, Thorndike, 1911 definition of imitation as “learning to do an act from seeing it done” has unduly restricted studies of the behavioral processes involved in the propagation of behavior. In part 2, I consider the possibility that success in labeling social learning processes believed to be less cognitively demanding than imitation (e.g. local and stimulus enhancement, social facilitation, etc.) has been mistaken for understanding of those processes, although essentially nothing is known of their stimulus control, development, phylogeny or substrate either behavioral or physiological.
|
|
|
Blatz, S., Krüger, K., & Zanger, M. (2018). Der Hufmechanismus – was wir wirklich wissen! Eine historische und fachliche Auseinandersetzung mit der Biomechanik des Hufes. Wald: Xenophon Verlag e.K.
Abstract: Der Hufmechanismus – wir alle glauben ihn zu kennen und zu wissen wie er funktioniert. Doch wussten Sie, dass nach über 250 Jahren der Forschung immer noch keine eindeutige Aussage dazu getroffen werden kann, wie der Hufmechanismus genau entsteht, vonstattengeht und wie er bei der Hufbearbeitung berücksichtigt werden muss?
Die Ergebnisse von 50 Studien unterstützen die Elastizitätstheorie. Sie beschreibt einen individuellen Hufmechanismus, der von Pferd zu Pferd unterschiedlich und von mannigfaltigen Faktoren abhängig ist.
Der Hufmechanismus zeigt sich als ebenso anpassungsfähig wie die Hufform selbst. Daher sollte bei der Hufbearbeitung und beim Beschlag mit Maß und Weitblick die optimale und individuelle Lösung für jedes Pferd gefunden werden.
|
|