Equine and Animal Cognition Reference Database -- Query Results

Sighieri, C., Tedeschi, D., De Andreis, C., Petri, L., & Baragli, P. (2003). Behaviour Patterns of Horses Can be Used to Establish a Dominant-Subordinate Relationship Between Man and Horse. Animal Welfare, 12(4), 705–708. Abstract: This paper describes how man can enter the social hierarchy of the horse by mimicking the behaviour and stance it uses to establish dominance. A herd is organised according to a dominance hierarchy established by means of ritualised conflict. Dominance relationships are formed through these confrontations: one horse gains the dominant role and others identify themselves as subordinates. This study was conducted using five females of the Haflinger breed, totally unaccustomed to human contact, from a free-range breeding farm. The study methods were based on the three elements fundamental to the equilibrium of the herd: flight, herd instinct and hierarchy. The trainer-horse relationship was established in three phases: retreat, approach and association. At the end of the training sessions, all of the horses were able to respond correctly to the trainer. These observations suggest that it is possible to manage unhandled horses without coercion by mimicking their behaviour patterns. Keywords: animal welfare; behaviour patterns; dominance; unhandled horse https://references.equine-behaviour.de/show.php?record=6713
Lovrovich, P., Sighieri, C., & Baragli, P. (2012). The human-given cues and behavioural plasticity of horses during a delayed three choice task. In K. Krueger (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2. International Equine Science Meeting (Vol. in press). Wald: Xenophon Publishing. Abstract: Recent studies have tested the ability of horses to understand human gestures. But even at the moment results are rather contradictory. This study was aimed at analyzing ability of horses to understand, remember and use human-given cues in a delayed three choice task. After the training period, sixteen horses had to choose between three blue buckets. One of them hid a carrot. Eight horses (A-group) saw the person hiding the carrot and they had to choose the correct bucket only after the person had hidden carrot and gone away. Control group, eight horses (B-group) did not know where the carrot was, and could only choose the bucket through the use of smell or by random choice. Each horse carried out 10 trials in the same test session. A-group chose the correct bucket to a greater extent on the first try (4.37±1.42), compared to the second (3.00±0.53) and the third try (0.75±0.71). With significant differences between the first and the second try (t14=2.582, p=0.022), the first and the third try (t14=6.508, p=0.000), and between the second and the third try (t14=7.180, p=0.000). Also the B-group chose the correct bucket to a greater extent on the first try (3.87±0.83) compared to the second (3.37±1.51) and the third (1.75±1.49). Anyway, there was no differences between the first and the second try (t14=0.821, p=0.425). As regards the B-group, statistical differences were found between the first and the third try (t14=3.523, p=0.003) and between the second and the third try (t14=2.171, p=0.048). Moreover, A-group showed a negative correlation (r=-0.652, p=0.0409) between the number of correct answers at first trial, and seemed that they used human information during the first half of the trials. As the trials proceeded, the average time required to find carrot decreased, with a negative correlation (r=-0.779, p=0.0079) over trials while, the number of overturned bucket to find carrot increased over trials (r=0.770, p=0.0091). As the trials proceeded, the horses tended to choose at first the bucket where the carrot had been found in the previous trial (r=0.450, p=0.013). Any kind of correlation over trials was found in B-group. In the first trials, the horses we studied seemed to understand human given-cues information, store it and use it appropriately even in absence of a person. As trials proceeded they seemed to change strategy, searching carrots where it had been found in the previous trial. Therefore, horses could use human given-cues or other cognitive strategy depending on the time, energy cost and mental effort required to solve the task. KW - https://references.equine-behaviour.de/show.php?record=5547

Abstract: This paper describes how man can enter the social hierarchy of the horse by mimicking the behaviour and stance it uses to establish dominance. A herd is organised according to a dominance hierarchy established by means of ritualised conflict. Dominance relationships are formed through these confrontations: one horse gains the dominant role and others identify themselves as subordinates. This study was conducted using five females of the Haflinger breed, totally unaccustomed to human contact, from a free-range breeding farm. The study methods were based on the three elements fundamental to the equilibrium of the herd: flight, herd instinct and hierarchy. The trainer-horse relationship was established in three phases: retreat, approach and association. At the end of the training sessions, all of the horses were able to respond correctly to the trainer. These observations suggest that it is possible to manage unhandled horses without coercion by mimicking their behaviour patterns.

Abstract: Recent studies have tested the ability of horses to understand human gestures. But even at the moment results are rather contradictory. This study was aimed at analyzing ability of horses to understand, remember and use human-given cues in a delayed three choice task. After the training period, sixteen horses had to choose between three blue buckets. One of them hid a carrot. Eight horses (A-group) saw the person hiding the carrot and they had to choose the correct bucket only after the person had hidden carrot and gone away. Control group, eight horses (B-group) did not know where the carrot was, and could only choose the bucket through the use of smell or by random choice. Each horse carried out 10 trials in the same test session. A-group chose the correct bucket to a greater extent on the first try (4.37±1.42), compared to the second (3.00±0.53) and the third try (0.75±0.71). With significant differences between the first and the second try (t14=2.582, p=0.022), the first and the third try (t14=6.508, p=0.000), and between the second and the third try (t14=7.180, p=0.000). Also the B-group chose the correct bucket to a greater extent on the first try (3.87±0.83) compared to the second (3.37±1.51) and the third (1.75±1.49). Anyway, there was no differences between the first and the second try (t14=0.821, p=0.425). As regards the B-group, statistical differences were found between the first and the third try (t14=3.523, p=0.003) and between the second and the third try (t14=2.171, p=0.048). Moreover, A-group showed a negative correlation (r=-0.652, p=0.0409) between the number of correct answers at first trial, and seemed that they used human information during the first half of the trials. As the trials proceeded, the average time required to find carrot decreased, with a negative correlation (r=-0.779, p=0.0079) over trials while, the number of overturned bucket to find carrot increased over trials (r=0.770, p=0.0091). As the trials proceeded, the horses tended to choose at first the bucket where the carrot had been found in the previous trial (r=0.450, p=0.013). Any kind of correlation over trials was found in B-group. In the first trials, the horses we studied seemed to understand human given-cues information, store it and use it appropriately even in absence of a person. As trials proceeded they seemed to change strategy, searching carrots where it had been found in the previous trial. Therefore, horses could use human given-cues or other cognitive strategy depending on the time, energy cost and mental effort required to solve the task. KW -

https://references.equine-behaviour.de/show.php?record=5547