Abstract: Four experiments investigated Stroop interference using geometrically transformed words. Over experiments, reading was made increasingly difficult by manipulating orientation uncertainty and the number of noncolor words. As a consequence, time to read color words aloud increased dramatically. Yet, even when reading a color word was considerably slower than naming the color of ink in which the word was printed, Stroop interference persisted virtually unaltered. This result is incompatible with the simple horse race model widely used to explain color-word interference. When reading became extremely slow, a reversed Stroop effect--interference in reading the word due to an incongruent ink color--appeared for one transformation together with the standard Stroop interference. Whether or not the concept of automaticity is invoked, relative speed of processing the word versus the color does not provide an adequate overall explanation of the Stroop phenomenon.

Abstract: In mirror mark tests dolphins twist, posture, and engage in open-mouth and head movements, often repetitive. Because postures and an open mouth are also dolphin social behaviors, we used self-view television as a manipulatable mirror to distinguish between self-examination and social behavior. Two dolphins were exposed to alternating real-time self-view (“mirror mode”) and playback of the same to determine if they distinguished between them. The adult male engaged in elaborate open-mouth behaviors in mirror mode, but usually just watched when played back the same material. Mirror mode behavior was also compared to interacting with real dolphins (controls). Mark tests were conducted, as well as switches from front to side self-views to see if the dolphins turned. They presented marked areas to the self-view television and turned. The results suggest self-examination over social behavior.

Abstract: The question whether a certain species is or is not able to imitate has received much recent attention. However, the ability to copy a demonstrated action might depend not only on the imitative ability of the observer but also on its attention, a factor widely neglected in discussions and experiments. Since attention differs between species as well as between individuals, it is likely to influence the amount and type of information different species and/or observers may extract from a given demonstration. We studied attention in common marmosets, Callithrix jacchus. In a series of experimental sessions, individual marmosets watched different conspecific models that were searching, manipulating an object and feeding. The observers could see the demonstration through two observation holes, which allowed us to measure exactly how often and for how long they watched the model. Marmosets were more attentive towards conspecifics engaged in a problem-solving task than an exploring model. Individual variation in attention was large, ranging from less than 10% to over 49%. Attention also depended on the identity of the model with an increase in attention if it was of the opposite sex. Overall, attention of marmosets was short with a median duration of 6 s while the model manipulated an object. This study measured the real interest of the observer towards a model, which could be an important variable in social-learning experiments.

Abstract: Recent research has shown that domestic dogs are particularly good at reading human attentional cues, often outperforming chimpanzees and hand reared wolves [1, 2]. It has been suggested that the close evolutionary relationship between humans and dogs has led to the development of this ability, however very few other species have been studied [3]. We tested the ability of 24 domestic horses to discriminate between an attentive and inattentive person when choosing whom to approach for food. While the attentive person faced forwards, the inattentive person either stood with their body turned 180° away from the subject (body orientation condition), stood with their body facing forwards but their head facing away (head orientation condition) or stood facing forwards but with their eyes closed (eyes closed condition). A fourth, mixed condition was included where the attentive person stood with their body facing away from the subjects but their head turned towards the subject while the inattentive person stood with their body facing the subject but their head turned away. Horses chose the attentive person significantly more often using the body cue (n = 24, k = 19, p = 0.003), the head cue (n = 24, k = 18, p = 0.011), and the eye cue (n = 24, k = 19, p = 0.003) but not the mixed cue (n = 24, k = 13, p = 0.42). In an additional pilot study, horses were tested in an object choice task. A human experimenter cued one of two buckets by either tapping the bucket (tap condition), orienting their body towards the bucket and pointing (body and point condition), pointing while facing forwards (point condition) or orienting their body towards the bucket (body condition). If the subjects chose the correct bucket they were rewarded. Subjects were able to use the tap cue (n = 31, k = 21, p = 0.035), body + point cue (n= 31, k = 21, p = 0.035) and the point cue (n = 30, k = 21, p = 0.021) but not the body cue (n = 31, k = 11, p = 0.076). These results taken together suggest that domestic horses are also very sensitive to human attentional cues, including gaze.
Keywords:
social cognition, animal-human interaction, horses, attention attribution, domestication
1. Hare, B., Brown, M., Williamson, C., and Tomasello, M. (2002). The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science 298, 1634-1636.
2. Gacsi, M., Miklosi, A., Varga, O., Topal, J., and Csanyi, V. (2004). Are readers of our face readers of our minds` Dogs (Canis familiaris) show situation-dependent recognition of human’s attention. Animal Cognition 7, 144-153.
3. Hare, B., and Tomasello, M. (2005). Human-like social skills in dogs? Trends Cogn. Sci. 9, 439-444.

Abstract: Dogs' ability to recognise cues of human visual attention was studied in different experiments. Study 1 was designed to test the dogs' responsiveness to their owner's tape-recorded verbal commands (Down!) while the Instructor (who was the owner of the dog) was facing either the dog or a human partner or none of them, or was visually separated from the dog. Results show that dogs were more ready to follow the command if the Instructor attended them during instruction compared to situations when the Instructor faced the human partner or was out of sight of the dog. Importantly, however, dogs showed intermediate performance when the Instructor was orienting into 'empty space' during the re-played verbal commands. This suggests that dogs are able to differentiate the focus of human attention. In Study 2 the same dogs were offered the possibility to beg for food from two unfamiliar humans whose visual attention (i.e. facing the dog or turning away) was systematically varied. The dogs' preference for choosing the attentive person shows that dogs are capable of using visual cues of attention to evaluate the human actors' responsiveness to solicit food-sharing. The dogs' ability to understand the communicatory nature of the situations is discussed in terms of their social cognitive skills and unique evolutionary history.