|
|
Koba, Y., & Tanida, H. (1999). How do miniature pigs discriminate between people? The effect of exchanging cues between a non-handler and their familiar handler on discrimination. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 61(3), 239–252.
Abstract: Behavioural tests using operant conditioning were conducted to examine how miniature pigs discriminate between people. During a 3-week handling period, six 8-week-old pigs were touched and fed raisins as a reward whenever they approached their handler. In subsequent training, the handler and a non-handler wearing dark blue and white coveralls, respectively, and wearing different eau de toilette fragrances sat at each end of a Y-maze. Pigs were rewarded with raisins when they chose the handler. Successful discrimination occurred when the pig chose the handler at least 15 times in 20 trials (P<0.05: by χ2 test). When all pigs exhibited successful discrimination under these standard conditions, they were exposed to Experiments 1 through 4. In Experiment 1, (1) handler and non-handler exchanged colours of coveralls; (2) handler and non-handler exchanged eau de toilette; (3) handler and non-handler exchanged both cues. The non-handler was chosen significantly more often following the exchange of coverall colours and the exchange of both coverall colours and eau de toilette. However, the handler was chosen significantly more frequently following exchange of eau de toilette only. In Experiment 2, when both handler and non-handler wore coveralls of the handler's original colour, the pigs had difficulty discriminating between them. In Experiment 3, both handler and non-handler wore coveralls of new colours. The pigs easily chose the handler wearing red or blue vs. white coveralls. In Experiment 4, (1) two novel people wore coveralls of the original colours of handler and non-handler; (2) the test with the original experimenters was conducted under the original conditions but in a novel place. Between novel people, the one wearing the handler's original colour of coveralls was preferentially chosen by the pigs. The pigs had difficulty discriminating the handler from the non-handler in a novel place. Pigs appear to discriminate between a familiar handler and a non-familiar person based primarily on visual cues, prominent of which is colour of clothing.
|
|
|
|
Rybarczyk, P., Koba, Y., Rushen, J., Tanida, H., & de Passille, A. M. (2001). Can cows discriminate people by their faces? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 74(3), 175–189.
Abstract: This experiment examines the cues used by cattle to discriminate between people, particularly the role played by facial cues. We trained and tested eight Holstein cows 5 days each week for 2 months. For each cow, we used two people, a rewarder and a non-rewarder, of different size and dressed in overalls of the same colour. The operant chamber was a large box within which stood the two people. The cow could see, smell and touch each person. A lever was placed in front of each person. When the cow pushed the lever in front of the rewarder, it received 75 g of concentrate and nothing when it pushed on the other one. For each test session, the cows made 10 choices. The placement of the people was determined randomly according to the Gellerman series. The success criterion was defined as at least eight correct choices out of 10 trials for two consecutive sessions (binomial law P<0.003). During the shaping, seven cows out of eight learned to press the lever to obtain the food. The cows were then tested in a series of 10 trials with only the rewarder present. Seven out of seven cows succeeded in reaching the success criterion. In experiment 1, both the rewarder and the non-rewarder were present and standing upright at normal height and in full view of the cow. Five out of seven cows achieved the success criterion. In experiment 2, the cows could see only the faces of the two people. None of the cows were able to reach the success criterion. In experiment 3, both people were present standing up and wearing identical masks that completely covered their heads. Five cows out of five achieved the success criterion. In experiment 4, we changed the relative height of the people. Five cows out of five succeeded when the two people stood so they were of equal height but with their faces visible. However, no cows succeeded when the people were both of equal height and had their faces covered. This study suggests that cows seem to use multiple cues to discriminate between people. Cows appear able to use either body height or the face to discriminate between people but use of the face alone is more difficult when the cows cannot see the rest of the body.
|
|
|
|
Biederman, G. B., Robertson, H. A., & Vanayan, M. (1986). Observational learning of two visual discriminations by pigeons: a within-subjects design. J Exp Anal Behav, 46(1), 45–49.
Abstract: Pigeon's observational learning of successive visual discrimination was studied using within-subject comparisons of data from three experimental conditions. Two pairs of discriminative stimuli were used; each bird was exposed to two of the three experimental conditions, with different pairs of stimuli used in a given bird's two conditions. In one condition, observers were exposed to visual discriminative stimuli only. In a second condition, subjects were exposed to a randomly alternating sequence of two stimuli where the one that would subsequently be used as S+ was paired with the operation of the grain magazine. In a third experimental condition, subjects were exposed to the performance of a conspecific in the operant discrimination procedure. After exposures to conspecific performances, there was facilitation of discriminative learning, relative to that which followed exposures to stimulus and reinforcement sequences or exposures to stimulus sequences alone. Exposure to stimulus and food-delivery sequences enhanced performance relative to exposure to stimulus sequences alone. The differential effects of these three types of exposure were not attributable to order effects or to task difficulty; rather, they clearly were due to the type of exposure.
|
|
|
|
Albers, P. C. H., & de Vries, H. (2001). Elo-rating as a tool in the sequential estimation of dominance strengths. Anim. Behav., 61(2), 489–495.
|
|
|
|
Clutton-Brock, T. H., Albon, S. D., Gibson, R. M., & Guinness, F. E. (1979). The logical stag: Adaptive aspects of fighting in red deer (Cervus elaphus L.). Anim. Behav., 27(Part 1), 211–225.
Abstract: For red deer stags, fighting both has appreciable costs and yields considerable benefits. Up to 6% of rutting stags are permanently injured each year, while fighting success and reproductive success are closely related, within age groups as well as across them. Fighting behaviour is sensitive to changes in the potential benefits of fighting: stags fight most frequently and most intensely where potential benefits are high and tend to avoid fighting with individuals they are unlikely to beat. The relevance of these findings to theoretical models of fighting behaviour is discussed.
|
|
|
|
Drummond, H., & Canales, C. (1998). Dominance between booby nestlings involves winner and loser effects. Anim. Behav., 55(6), 1669–1676.
Abstract: Two-chick broods of the blue-footed booby,Sula nebouxii, ordinarily exhibit stable dominance-subordinance, with the senior (first-hatched) chick habitually aggressive and the junior one habitually submissive (Nelson 1978,The Sulidae: Gannets and Boobies. London: Oxford University Press). But are both the subordinate and the dominant chick affected in their agonistic tendencies by early social experience? To answer this, we permanently paired subordinate and dominant chicks, 2-3 weeks old, with singletons (chicks lacking experience with a nestmate) by cross-fostering. During the first 4 h after pairing, subordinate chicks were seven times less aggressive than singletons and twice as likely to be submissive; dominant chicks were six times as aggressive as singletons. Although most subordinates consistently lost agonistic encounters during the first 10 days after pairing, the proportion of dominants that won decreased progressively until, by day 6, only about half of dominant chicks were winning. Early social experience has a strong but reversable training effect on both subordinates and dominants. Training as a subordinate showed more persistent effects than training as a dominant, possibly in part because our testing situation perpetuated subordinate training and counteracted dominant training.
|
|
|
|
De Vries, H., & Appleby, M. C. (2000). Finding an appropriate order for a hierarchy: a comparison of the I&SI and the BBS methods. Anim. Behav., 59(1), 239–245.
|
|
|
|
Schusdziarra, H., Schusdziarra, V. (1978). Gymnasium des Reiters.
|
|
|
|
Schusdziarra, H., Schusdziarra, V. (1986). Reitergespräche – Der Weg zum unabhängigen Sitz.
|
|
|
|
Denniston, R. H. (1979). The varying role of the male in feral horses. Symp Ecol and Behav of wild and feral Equids, Laramie,, , 93–98.
|
|
