|
|
Vlamings, P. H. J. M., Uher, J., & Call, J. (2006). How the great apes (Pan troglodytes, Pongo pygmaeus, Pan paniscus, and Gorilla gorilla) perform on the reversed contingency task: the effects of food quantity and food visibility. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 32(1), 60–70.
Abstract: S. T. Boysen and G. G. Berntson (1995) found that chimpanzees performed poorly on a reversed contingency task in which they had to point to the smaller of 2 food quantities to acquire the larger quantity. The authors compared the performance of 4 great ape species (Pan troglodytes, Pongo pygmaeus, Pan paniscus, and Gorilla gorilla) on the reversed contingency task while manipulating food quantity (0-4 or 1-4) and food visibility (visible pairs or covered pairs). Results showed no systematic species differences but large individual differences. Some individuals of each species were able to solve the reversed contingency task. Both quantity and visibility of the food items had a significant effect on performance. Subjects performed better when the disparity between quantities was smaller and the quantities were not directly visible.
|
|
|
|
Church, R. M. (1997). Quantitative models of animal learning and cognition. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 23(4), 379–389.
Abstract: This article reviews the prerequisites for quantitative models of animal learning and cognition, describes the types of models, provides a rationale for the development of such quantitative models, describes criteria for their evaluation, and makes recommendations for the next generation of quantitative models. A modular approach to the development of models is described in which a procedure is considered as a generator of stimuli and a model is considered as a generator of responses. The goal is to develop models that, in combination with many different procedures, produce sequences of times of occurrence of events (stimuli and responses) that are indistinguishable from those produced by the animal under many experimental procedures and data analysis techniques.
|
|
|
|
Fetterman, J. G. (1996). Dimensions of stimulus complexity. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 22(1), 3–18.
Abstract: Animal learning research has increasingly used complex stimuli that approximate natural objects, events, and locations, a trend that has accompanied a resurgence of interest in the role of cognitive factors in learning. Accounts of complex stimulus control have focused mainly on cognitive mechanisms and largely ignored the contribution of stimulus information to perception and memory for complex events. It is argued here that research on animal learning stands to benefit from a more detailed consideration of the stimulus and that James Gibson's stimulus-centered theory of perception serves as a useful framework for analyses of complex stimuli. Several issues in the field of animal learning and cognition are considered from the Gibsonian perspective on stimuli, including the fundamental problem of defining the effective stimulus.
|
|
|
|
Houpt, K. A., Parsons, M. S., & Hintz, H. F. (1982). Learning ability of orphan foals, of normal foals and of their mothers. J. Anim Sci., 55(5), 1027–1032.
Abstract: The maze learning ability of six pony foals that had been weaned at birth was compared to that of six foals reared normally. The foals' learning ability was also compared to their mothers' learning ability at the same task; the correct turn in a single choice point maze. The maze learning test was conducted when the foals were 6 to 8 mo old and after the mothered foals had been weaned. There was no significant difference between the ability of orphaned (weaned at birth) and mothered foals in their ability to learn to turn left (6 +/- .7 and 5.1 +/- .1 trials, respectively) or to learn the reversal, to turn right (6.7 +/- .6 and 6.2 +/- .6 trials, respectively). The orphan foals spent significantly more time in the maze in their first exposure to it than the mothered foals (184 +/- 42 vs 55 +/- 15 s. Mann Whitney U = 7, P less than .05). The mothers of the foals (n = 11) learned to turn left as rapidly as the foals (5.9 +/- .7 trials), but they were slower to learn to turn right (9.8 +/- 1.4 vs 6.4 +/- .4 trials, Mann Whitney U = 33, P less than .05), indicating that the younger horses learned more rapidly. There was no correlation between the trials to criteria of the mare and those of her foal, but there was a significant negative correlation between rank in trials to criteria and age (r = -65, P less than .05) when data from the mare and foal trials were combined. The dominance hierarchy of the mares was determined using a paired feeding test in which two horses competed for one bucket of feed. Although there was no correlation between rank in the hierarchy and maze learning ability, there was a correlation between body weight and rank in the hierarchy (r = .7, P less than .05). This may indicate either that heavier horses are likely to be dominant or that horses high in dominance gain more weight. Maternal deprivation did not appear to seriously retard learning of a simple maze by foals, although the orphans moved more slowly initially. The lack of maternal influence on learning is also reflected in the lack of correlation between the mare's learning ability and that of her foal. Young horses appear to learn more rapidly than older horses.
|
|
|
|
Rubin, L., Oppegard, C., & Hindz, H. F. (1980). The effect of varying the temporal distribution of conditioning trials on equine learning behavior. J. Anim Sci., 50(6), 1184–1187.
Abstract: Two experiments were conducted to study the effect of varying the temporal distrbution of conditioning sessions on equine learning behavior. In the first experiment, 15 ponies were trained to clear a small hurdle in response to a buzzer in order to avoid a mild electric shock. Three treatments were used. One group received 10 learning trials daily, seven times a week; one group was trained in the same fashion two times a week and one group was trained once a week. The animals conditioned only once a week achieved a high level of performance in significantly fewer sessions than the ones conditioned seven times a week, although elapsed time from start of training to completion was two to three times greater for the former group. The twice-a-week group learned at an intermediate rate. In the second experiment, the ponies were rearranged into three new groups. They were taught to move backward a specific distance in response to a visual cue in order to avoid an electric shock. Again, one group was trained seven times a week, one group was trained two times and one group was trained once a week. As in the first experiment, the animals trained once a week achieved the learning criteria in significantly fewer sessions than those trained seven times a week, but, as in trial 1, elapsed time from start to finish was greater for them. The two times-a-week group learned at a rate in-between the rates of the other two groups.
|
|
|
|
Heird, J. C., Lennon, A. M., & Bell, R. W. (1981). Effects of early experience on the learning ability of yearling horses. J. Anim Sci., 53(5), 1204–1209.
Abstract: Twenty-four yearling Quarter Horse fillies were divided into three groups (I) very limited handling, (II) intermediate handling and (III) extensive handling. At about 14 months of age, each horse was preconditioned for 2 weeks and then run in a simple place-learning T-maze test in which it had to locate its feed. Thirty trials were run daily for 20 days, with the location of the feed changed each day. To retire from the maze, a horse had to meet the criterion: 11 correct responses in 12 tries, with the last eight being consecutive. Horses in Group II required the fewest trials to reach criterion. These horses also learned more and had the highest percentage of correct responses (P less than .05). Mean trainability tended to predict learning ability; however, trainability and trials to criterion were not significantly correlated. Mean emotionality scores indicated a tendency for horses in the intermediately handled group to be less emotional than those in Group I or III. Results indicated that horses with an intermediate amount of handling scored higher on an intermediate test of learning. All handled horses scored higher on learning tests than those not handled.
|
|
|
|
Nicol, C. J. (2004). Development, direction, and damage limitation: social learning in domestic fowl. Learn Behav, 32(1), 72–81.
Abstract: This review highlights two areas of particular interest in the study of social learning in fowl. First, the role of social learning in the development of feeding and foraging behavior in young chicks and older birds is described. The role of the hen as a demonstrator and possible teacher is considered, and the subsequent social influence of brood mates and other companions on food avoidance and food preference learning is discussed. Second, the way in which work on domestic fowl has contributed to an understanding of the importance of directed social learning is examined. The well-characterized hierarchical social organization of small chicken flocks has been used to design studies which demonstrate that the probability of social transmission is strongly influenced by social relationships between birds. The practical implications of understanding the role of social learning in the spread of injurious behaviors in this economically important species are briefly considered.
|
|
|
|
Zentall, T. R. (2004). Action imitation in birds. Learn Behav, 32(1), 15–23.
Abstract: Action imitation, once thought to be a behavior almost exclusively limited to humans and the great apes, surprisingly also has been found in a number of bird species. Because imitation has been viewed by some psychologists as a form of intelligent behavior, there has been interest in how it is distributed among animal species. Although the mechanisms responsible for action imitation are not clear, we are now at least beginning to understand the conditions under which it occurs. In this article, I try to identify and differentiate the various forms of socially influenced behavior (species-typical social reactions, social effects on motivation, social effects on perception, socially influenced learning, and action imitation) and explain why it is important to differentiate imitation from other forms of social influence. I also examine some of the variables that appear to be involved in the occurrence of imitation. Finally, I speculate about why a number of bird species, but few mammal species, appear to imitate.
|
|
|
|
Fragaszy, D., & Visalberghi, E. (2004). Socially biased learning in monkeys. Learn Behav, 32(1), 24–35.
Abstract: We review socially biased learning about food and problem solving in monkeys, relying especially on studies with tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) and callitrichid monkeys. Capuchin monkeys most effectively learn to solve a new problem when they can act jointly with an experienced partner in a socially tolerant setting and when the problem can be solved by direct action on an object or substrate, but they do not learn by imitation. Capuchin monkeys are motivated to eat foods, whether familiar or novel, when they are with others that are eating, regardless of what the others are eating. Thus, social bias in learning about foods is indirect and mediated by facilitation of feeding. In most respects, social biases in learning are similar in capuchins and callitrichids, except that callitrichids provide more specific behavioral cues to others about the availability and palatability of foods. Callitrichids generally are more tolerant toward group members and coordinate their activity in space and time more closely than capuchins do. These characteristics support stronger social biases in learning in callitrichids than in capuchins in some situations. On the other hand, callitrichids' more limited range of manipulative behaviors, greater neophobia, and greater sensitivity to the risk of predation restricts what these monkeys learn in comparison with capuchins. We suggest that socially biased learning is always the collective outcome of interacting physical, social, and individual factors, and that differences across populations and species in social bias in learning reflect variations in all these dimensions. Progress in understanding socially biased learning in nonhuman species will be aided by the development of appropriately detailed models of the richly interconnected processes affecting learning.
|
|
|
|
Whiten, A., Horner, V., Litchfield, C. A., & Marshall-Pescini, S. (2004). How do apes ape? Learn. Behav., 32(1), 36–52.
Abstract: In the wake of telling critiques of the foundations on which earlier conclusions were based, the last 15 years have witnessed a renaissance in the study of social learning in apes. As a result, we are able to review 31 experimental studies from this period in which social learning in chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans has been investigated. The principal question framed at the beginning of this era, Do apes ape? has been answered in the affirmative, at least in certain conditions. The more interesting question now is, thus, How do apes ape? Answering this question has engendered richer taxonomies of the range of social-learning processes at work and new methodologies to uncover them. Together, these studies suggest that apes ape by employing a portfolio of alternative social-learning processes in flexibly adaptive ways, in conjunction with nonsocial learning. We conclude by sketching the kind of decision tree that appears to underlie the deployment of these alternatives.
|
|
