|
Real, L. A. (1991). Animal choice behavior and the evolution of cognitive architecture. Science, 253(5023), 980–986.
Abstract: Animals process sensory information according to specific computational rules and, subsequently, form representations of their environments that form the basis for decisions and choices. The specific computational rules used by organisms will often be evolutionarily adaptive by generating higher probabilities of survival, reproduction, and resource acquisition. Experiments with enclosed colonies of bumblebees constrained to foraging on artificial flowers suggest that the bumblebee's cognitive architecture is designed to efficiently exploit floral resources from spatially structured environments given limits on memory and the neuronal processing of information. A non-linear relationship between the biomechanics of nectar extraction and rates of net energetic gain by individual bees may account for sensitivities to both the arithmetic mean and variance in reward distributions in flowers. Heuristic rules that lead to efficient resource exploitation may also lead to subjective misperception of likelihoods. Subjective probability formation may then be viewed as a problem in pattern recognition subject to specific sampling schemes and memory constraints.
|
|
|
Premack D, & Woodruff G. (1978). Chimpanzee problem-solving: a test for comprehension. Science, 202(3), 532.
|
|
|
Pinker, S. (1999). COGNITION:Enhanced: Out of the Minds of Babes. Science, 283(5398), 40–41.
|
|
|
Pennisi, E. (2006). Animal cognition. Man's best friend(s) reveal the possible roots of social intelligence (Vol. 312).
|
|
|
Pennisi, E. (2006). Animal cognition. Social animals prove their smarts (Vol. 312).
|
|
|
Pennisi, E. (1999). Are out primate cousins 'conscious'? (Vol. 284).
|
|
|
Pennisi, E. (1997). Schizophrenia clues from monkeys (Vol. 277).
|
|
|
Pennisi, E. (2007). PSYCHOLOGY: Nonhuman Primates Demonstrate Humanlike Reasoning. Science, 317(5843), 1308–.
|
|
|
Peham, C., Licka, T., Schobesberger, H., & Meschan, E. (2004). Influence of the rider on the variability of the equine gait. European Workshop on Movement Science, 23(5), 663–671.
Abstract: The aim of this study was to show that the motion pattern of a well-ridden horse varies less than the motion pattern of an unridden horse. In order to do so, we recorded the motion of two markers, one attached to the dorsal spinous processus of lumbar vertebra L4, the other to the right fore hoof. In total, we measured 21 horses in trot, ridden and unridden, with a fitting and with a non-fitting saddle. After breaking down the entire time series of the three-dimensional motion of the markers into their respective motion cycles, we computed a measure of motion pattern variability for the motion as well as for the derivatives (velocity and acceleration) along each of the three principal dimensions. Two of six variables (velocity and acceleration in the forward direction) displayed a significant discrimination between the ridden and the unridden case, and demonstrated the beneficial effect of a rider on the horse's motion pattern variability. Saddle fit was shown to have also an influence on motion variability: variability of two variables (velocity and of acceleration in forward direction) was significantly lower with a fitting saddle compared to a non-fitting saddle, a third variable (acceleration in the transversal direction) showed a significant difference also. This new method offers an objective evaluation of saddle fit, and a sensitive assessment of the quality of the rider in the moving horse.
|
|
|
Packer, C., & Heinsohn, R. (1996). Response:Lioness leadership. Science, 271(5253), 1215–1216.
|
|