Abstract: A gray seal (Halichoerus grypus) was trained to touch a target on its left or right by responding to pointing signals. The authors then tested whether the seal would be able to generalize spontaneously to altered signals. It responded correctly to center pointing and head turning, center upper body turning, and off-center pointing but not to head turning and eye movements alone. The seal also responded correctly to brief ipsilateral and contralateral points from center and lateral positions. Pointing gestures did not cause the seal to select an object placed centrally behind it. Like many animals in similar studies, this gray seal probably did not understand the referential character of these gestures but rather used signal generalization and experience from initial operant conditioning to solve these tasks.

Abstract: Mirror usage has been taken to indicate some degree of awareness in animals. Can pigs, Sus scrofa, obtain information from a mirror? When put in a pen with a mirror in it, young pigs made movements while apparently looking at their image. After 5 h spent with a mirror, the pigs were shown a familiar food bowl, visible in the mirror but hidden behind a solid barrier. Seven out of eight pigs found the food bowl in a mean of 23 s by going away from the mirror and around the barrier. Naïve pigs shown the same looked behind the mirror. The pigs were not locating the food bowl by odour, did not have a preference for the area where the food bowl was and did not go to that area when the food bowl was visible elsewhere. To use information from a mirror and find a food bowl, each pig must have observed features of its surroundings, remembered these and its own actions, deduced relationships among observed and remembered features and acted accordingly. This ability indicates assessment awareness in pigs. The results may have some effects on the design of housing conditions for pigs and may lead to better pig welfare.

Abstract: Selection pressures during domestication are thought to lead to an enhanced ability to use human-given cues. Horses fulfil a wide variety of roles for humans and have been domesticated for at least 5000 years but their ability to read human cues has not been widely studied. We tested the ability of 28 horses to attend to human-given cues in an object choice task. We included five different cues: distal sustained pointing, momentary tapping, marker placement, body orientation and gaze (head) alternation. Horses were able to use the pointing and marker placement cues spontaneously but not the tapping, body orientation and gaze alternation cues. The overall pattern of responding suggests that horses may use cues that provide stimulus enhancement at the time of choice and do not have an understanding of the communicative nature of the cues given. As such, their proficiency at this task appears to be inferior to that of domestic dogs, Canis lupus familiaris, but similar to that of domestic goats, Caprus hircus.

Abstract: Abstract  There is contention concerning the role that domestication plays in the responsiveness of canids to human social cues, with most studies investigating abilities of recognized domestic dog breeds or wolves. Valuable insight regarding the evolution of social communication with humans might be gained by investigating Australian dingoes, which have an early history of domestication, but have been free-ranging in Australia for approximately 3500–5000 years. Seven ‘pure’ dingoes were tested outdoors by a familiar experimenter using the object-choice paradigm to determine whether they could follow nine human communicative gestures previously tested with domestic dogs and captive wolves. Dingoes passed all cues significantly above control, including the “benchmark” momentary distal pointing, with the exception of gaze only, gaze and point, and pointing from the incorrect location. Dingo performance appears to lie somewhere between wolves and dogs, which suggests that domestication may have played a role in their ability to comprehend human gestures.

Abstract: Observation of behaviour, especially social behaviour, and experimental studies of learning and brain function give us information about the complexity of concepts that animals have. In order to learn to obtain a resource or carry out an action, domestic animals may: relate stimuli such as human words to the reward, perform sequences of actions including navigation or detours, discriminate amongst other individuals, copy the actions of other individuals, distinguish between individuals who do or do not have information, or communicate so as to cause humans or other animals to carry out actions. Some parrots, that are accustomed to humans but not domesticated, can use words to have specific meanings. In some cases, stimuli, individuals or actions are remembered for days, weeks or years. Events likely to occur in the future may be predicted and changes over time taken into account. Scientific evidence for the needs of animals depends, in part, on studies assessing motivational strength whose methodology depends on the cognitive ability of the animals. Recognition and learning may be associated with changes in physiology, behaviour and positive or negative feelings. Learning and other complex behaviour can result in affect and affect can alter cognition. The demonstration of cognitive bias gives indications about affect and welfare but should be interpreted in the light of other information. All of the information mentioned so far helps to provide evidence about sentience and the level of awareness. The term sentience implies a range of abilities, not just the capacity to have some feelings. The reluctance of scientists to attribute complex abilities and feelings to non-humans has slowed the development of this area of science. Most people consider that they have obligations to some animals. However, they might protect animals because they consider that an animal has an intrinsic value, or because of their concern for its welfare. In social species, there has been selection promoting moral systems that might result in behaviours such as attempts to avoid harm to others, collaboration and other altruistic behaviour. An evaluation of such behaviour may provide one of the criteria for decisions about whether or not to protect animals of a particular species. Other criteria may be: whether or not the animal is known as an individual, similarity to humans, level of awareness, extent of feelings, being large, being rare, being useful or having aesthetic quality for humans. Cognitive ability should also be considered when designing methods of enriching the environments of captive animals.