Abstract: The scientific investigation of the basics of the inherited riding teachings assists in conserving its values. Riding instructors should be able to teach not only “how” but also “why”.
The classic European riding teachings that have developed across the centuries are based on perceptions that have their roots in natural phenomena. They are being mirrored, for instance, in the aids to stimulate the change from one gait to the next.
The movements of the horse's trunk and back provide timers for horse-friendly, sensitive aids that create attentive, diligent and happily cooperating horses.

Abstract: Horses have been considered to rely on human gesticular cues (McKinley and Sambrook 2000, Anim Cogn 3:13-22; and recently Maros et al. 2008, Anim Cogn 11:457-466), however large variability among individuals tested in two-ways object choice tasks was found. Part of the horses in those studies (40 and 26 %, respectively) even failed to pass adequately through the training session which preceded the testing phase and served to learn a horse to carry out a task. Therefore, we alternated the experimental design designed by McKinley and Sambrook (reduced number of testing trials to 10 per horse to keep its attention, applied just one, a dynamic-sustained pointing cue with touching the bucket, etc.), and tested an effect of training method, sex, age, and learning on proportion of correct choices. We hypothesised, that horses trained by “traditional” method (TTM) will get lower score than those experienced with “horsemanship-based” methods (HTM), being characterized by closer and more frequent human-horse contact and also extended exercising “from the ground” with frequent using of arms cues. Despite simplification of the methods, only about 60 % of tested horses passed through the training phase (i.e., learned to come to and upturn the bucket with hidden treat). Successful completion of training phase was reached regardless of age or sex of a horse, but by the training method; HTM horses ran better compared to TTM ones. No significant effect of age, sex, or learning (i.e., trial order within all 10), and training method as well was found on proportion of correct trials in the testing phase. Horses made a correct choice in more than 70% of trials. Individual scores ranged from 50 to 100 %. In conclusion, horses showed high level of comprehension of human pointing gesture, regardless of their sex or age. No effects of training method or learning process within a test suggest low impact of handling and learning on the level of comprehension at least of the most vivid human pointing gesture. Horses trained by methods based on “natural human-horse communication” did enhance cooperation with people.

Abstract: This study examined the communicative behavior of 49 captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), particularly their use of vocalizations, manual gestures, and other auditory- or tactile-based behaviors as a means of gaining an inattentive audience's attention. A human (Homo sapiens) experimenter held a banana while oriented either toward or away from the chimpanzee. The chimpanzees' behavior was recorded for 60 s. Chimpanzees emitted vocalizations faster and were more likely to produce vocalizations as their 1st communicative behavior when a human was oriented away from them. Chimpanzees used manual gestures more frequently and faster when the human was oriented toward them. These results replicate the findings of earlier studies on chimpanzee gestural communication and provide new information about the intentional and functional use of their vocalizations.

Abstract: In previous studies great apes have shown little ability to locate hidden food using a physical marker placed by a human directly on the target location. In this study, we hypothesized that the perceptual similarity between an iconic cue and the hidden reward (baited container) would help apes to infer the location of the food. In the first two experiments, we found that if an iconic cue is given in addition to a spatial/indexical cue – e.g., picture or replica of a banana placed on the target location – apes (chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas) as a group performed above chance. However, we also found in two further experiments that when iconic cues were given on their own without spatial/indexical information (iconic cue held up by human with no diagnostic spatial/indexical information), the apes were back to chance performance. Our overall conclusion is that although iconic information helps apes in the process of searching hidden food, the poor performance found in the last two experiments is due to apes' lack of understanding of the informative (cooperative) communicative intention of the experimenter.

Abstract: After Charles Darwin's The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, published in 1872, we had to wait 60 years before the theme of animal expressions was picked up by another astute observer. In 1935, Nadezhda Ladygina-Kohts published a detailed comparison of the expressive behavior of a juvenile chimpanzee and of her own child. After Kohts, we had to wait until the 1960s for modern ethological analyses of primate facial and gestural communication. Again, the focus was on the chimpanzee, but ethograms on other primates appeared as well. Our understanding of the range of expressions in other primates is at present far more advanced than that in Darwin's time. A strong social component has been added: instead of focusing on the expressions per se, they are now often classified according to the social situations in which they typically occur. Initially, quantitative analyses were sequential (i.e., concerned with temporal associations between behavior patterns), and they avoided the language of emotions. I will discuss some of this early work, including my own on the communicative repertoire of the bonobo, a close relative of the chimpanzee (and ourselves). I will provide concrete examples to make the point that there is a much richer matrix of contexts possible than the common behavioral categories of aggression, sex, fear, play, and so on. Primate signaling is a form of negotiation, and previous classifications have ignored the specifics of what animals try to achieve with their exchanges. There is also increasing evidence for signal conventionalization in primates, especially the apes, in both captivity and the field. This process results in group-specific or “cultural” communication patterns.