Abstract: There has been relatively little research on the psychological mechanisms of social learning. This may be due, in part, to the practice of distinguishing categories of social learning in relation to ill-defined mechanisms (Davis, 1973; Galef, 1988). This practice both makes it difficult to identify empirically examples of different types of social learning, and gives the false impression that the mechanisms responsible for social learning are clearly understood. It has been proposed that social learning phenomena be subsumed within the categorization scheme currently used by investigators of asocial learning. This scheme distinguishes categories of learning according to observable conditions, namely, the type of experience that gives rise to a change in an animal (single stimulus vs. stimulus-stimulus relationship vs. response-reinforcer relationship), and the type of behaviour in which this change is detected (response evocation vs. learnability) (Rescorla, 1988). Specifically, three alignments have been proposed: (i) stimulus enhancement with single stimulus learning, (ii) observational conditioning with stimulus-stimulus learning, or Pavlovian conditioning, and (iii) observational learning with response-reinforcer learning, or instrumental conditioning. If, as the proposed alignments suggest, the conditions of social and asocial learning are the same, there is some reason to believe that the mechanisms underlying the two sets of phenomena are also the same. This is so if one makes the relatively uncontroversial assumption that phenomena which occur under similar conditions tend to be controlled by similar mechanisms. However, the proposed alignments are intended to be a set of hypotheses, rather than conclusions, about the mechanisms of social learning; as a basis for further research in which animal learning theory is applied to social learning. A concerted attempt to apply animal learning theory to social learning, to find out whether the same mechanisms are responsible for social and asocial learning, could lead both to refinements of the general theory, and to a better understanding of the mechanisms of social learning. There are precedents for these positive developments in research applying animal learning theory to food aversion learning (e.g. Domjan, 1983; Rozin & Schull, 1988) and imprinting (e.g. Bolhuis, de Vox & Kruit, 1990; Hollis, ten Cate & Bateson, 1991). Like social learning, these phenomena almost certainly play distinctive roles in the antogeny of adaptive behaviour, and they are customarily regarded as 'special kinds' of learning (Shettleworth, 1993).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Abstract: Abstract
Several comparative research programs have focusedon the cognitive, life history and ecological traits thataccount for variation in brain size. We review one ofthese programs, a program that uses the reported frequencyof behavioral innovation as an operational measureof cognition. In both birds and primates, innovationrate is positively correlated with the relative size of associationareas in the brain, the hyperstriatum ventrale andneostriatum in birds and the isocortex and striatum inprimates. Innovation rate is also positively correlatedwith the taxonomic distribution of tool use, as well asinterspecific differences in learning. Some features ofcognition have thus evolved in a remarkably similar wayin primates and at least six phyletically-independent avianlineages. In birds, innovation rate is associated withthe ability of species to deal with seasonal changes in theenvironment and to establish themselves in new regions,and it also appears to be related to the rate atwhich lineages diversify. Innovation rate provides a usefultool to quantify inter-taxon differences in cognitionand to test classic hypotheses regarding the evolution ofthe brain.

Abstract: Laterality in any organism or species can be manifest as morphological, sensory and functional degrees of asymmetry such as hemispheric dominance, handedness or sidedness and other motor functional behaviours and as such is equally important in equitation. The influence of the horses' sex on both the direction and the degree of the laterality was explored within and between 4 experimental procedures in the 1st study. The findings showed that the direction, but not the degree of idiosyncratic motor preference in the horses was strongly sex-related. Male horses exhibited significantly more left lateralized responses and female horses exhibited significantly more right lateralized responses. Visuo-spatial ability is also likely to be important in the performance horse. In many species, moderate to large differences in visuo-spatial ability have been reported between the sexes, with superior visuo-spatial ability being reported in males of all species investigated to date. As no known studies had addressed visuo-spatial ability in the equine, the objective of the 2nd study, was to determine if visuo-spatial ability differed between male and female horses. The results produced the first behavioural demonstration of superior visuo-spatial ability in male horses, similar to that reported in other species. There is evidence to suggest that visuospatial ability and motor laterality are associated with cerebral hemispheric asymmetry and may be intrinsically linked. Brain development and laterality have also been associated with hair patterning, and, in a 3rd study we attempted to identify predictors of lateral bias in motor behaviour in horses. We investigated the relationship between the direction of facial hair whorl rotation and the incidence/direction of laterality in the horse. The findings suggest that direction of facial hair whorl rotation may be a useful indicator of lateralised motor behavioural preferences in the horse. We then attempted to establish if laterality was evident at birth in a 4th study, where we explored if neonatal foals exhibited lateralised patterns during and immediately post the birthing process that were correlated with their facial hair whorl patterns. The results showed a significant association between the sex of the foal and the choice of foreleg presented initially during 2nd stage parturition. Significantly more colt foals led with the left foreleg and significantly more filly foals led with the right foreleg than expected purely by random and the behaviour was correlated with facial hair whorl patterns. The findings also suggest that lateralisation in the horse is determined in utero as has also been shown in humans. Comparisons of wholly intact male and female horses are warranted as they might elucidate additional linkages between motor behaviour, visuo-spatial ability and brain organisation and development in the horse. Further research in this area could lead to more appropriate competition conditions (better fence design/construction on cross-country tracks) and so eliminate unnecessary levels of risk associated with many equestrian sports.