Abstract: Avian literature on sibling recognition is rare compared to that developed by mammalian researchers. We compare avian and mammalian research on sibling recognition to identify why avian work is rare, how approaches differ and what avian and mammalian researchers can learn from each other. Three factors: (1) biological differences between birds and mammals, (2) conceptual biases and (3) practical constraints, appear to influence our current understanding. Avian research focuses on colonial species because sibling recognition is considered adaptive where 'mixing potential' of dependent young is high; research on a wider range of species, breeding systems and ecological conditions is now needed. Studies of acoustic recognition cues dominate avian literature; other types of cues (e.g. visual, olfactory) deserve further attention. The effect of gender on avian sibling recognition has yet to be investigated; mammalian work shows that gender can have important influences. Most importantly, many researchers assume that birds recognise siblings through 'direct familiarisation' (commonly known as associative learning or familiarity); future experiments should also incorporate tests for 'indirect familiarisation' (commonly known as phenotype matching). If direct familiarisation proves crucial, avian research should investigate how periods of separation influence sibling discrimination. Mammalian researchers typically interpret sibling recognition in broad functional terms (nepotism, optimal outbreeding); some avian researchers more successfully identify specific and testable adaptive explanations, with greater relevance to natural contexts. We end by reporting exciting discoveries from recent studies of avian sibling recognition that inspire further interest in this topic.

Abstract: Trial duration and intertrial interval duration were parametrically varied between groups of pigeons exposed to a discrimination involving the presence vs. the absence of a dot. Half the groups received the dot as the positive stimulus (feature positive groups) and half the groups received the dot as the negative stimulus (feature negative groups). Faster learning by the feature positive birds (feature positive effect) was found when the trial duration was short (5 sec) regardless of whether the intertrial interval was short (5 sec) or long (30 sec). No evidence for a feature positive effect was found when the trial duration was long (30 sec) regardless of the length of the intertrial interval (30 sec or 180 sec). The results suggest that short trial duration is a necessary condition for the occurrence of the feature positive effect, and neither intertrial interval nor trial duration/intertrial interval ratio are important for its occurrence. The suggestion that mechanisms underlying the feature positive effect and autoshaping might be similar was not supported by the present experiment since the trial duration/intertrial interval ration parameter appears to play an important role in autoshaping but not the feature positive effect.

Abstract: Although reinforcement often leads to repetitive, even stereotyped responding, that is not a necessary outcome. When it depends on variations, reinforcement results in responding that is diverse, novel, indeed unpredictable, with distributions sometimes approaching those of a random process. This article reviews evidence for the powerful and precise control by reinforcement over behavioral variability, evidence obtained from human and animal-model studies, and implications of such control. For example, reinforcement of variability facilitates learning of complex new responses, aids problem solving, and may contribute to creativity. Depression and autism are characterized by abnormally repetitive behaviors, but individuals afflicted with such psychopathologies can learn to vary their behaviors when reinforced for so doing. And reinforced variability may help to solve a basic puzzle concerning the nature of voluntary action.

Abstract: Horses are well able to form classical and instrumental associations and so the focus of much recent research has been on the stimulus control of instrumental learning. Horses appear to discriminate using spatial cues more easily than other stimulus features, as indicated both by the speed of initial task acquisition and by the extent to which acquired discriminations can be reversed. Phenomena associated with discrimination learning in laboratory animals, including generalisation and peak shift, have been demonstrated in horses. However, the ability of horses to classify stimuli into categories is more controversial. Although there is some evidence that horses may be able to form categories based on similarities in the physical appearance of different stimuli, there is currently no evidence that they are able to develop abstract concepts. Their performance on social learning tasks has also been poor. Few correlations are observed between the learning ability of individual horses on different tasks, suggesting that it may not be possible to classify individual horses as `good' or `poor' learners. Better learning performance by horses that are naturally calm is probably due to reduced interference in the learning process. Correct handling procedures can lower reactivity levels in horses, and may facilitate learning in some circumstances. Future research on equine learning needs to take into account the complex nature of equine social interaction. Studies on the effects of stress on learning, and on social and spatial cognition, are also particularly needed.

Abstract: Two rhesus and two Japanese macaque infants were cross-fostered between species in order to study the effects of auditory experience on vocal development. Both the cross-fostered and normally raised control subjects were observed over the first 2 years of life and their vocalizations were tape-recorded. We classified 8053 calls by ear, placed each call in one of six acoustic categories, and calculated the rates at which different call-types were used in different social contexts. Species differences were found in the use of “coo” and “gruff” vocalizations among control subjects. Japanese macaques invariably produced coos almost exclusively. In contrast, rhesus macaques produced a mixture of coos and gruffs and showed considerable interindividual variation in the relative use of one call type or the other. Cross-fostered Japanese macaques adhered to their species-typical behavior, rarely using gruffs. Cross-fostered rhesus subjects also exhibited species-typical behavior in many contexts, but in some situations produced coos and gruffs at rates that were intermediate between those shown by normally raised animals of the two species. This outcome suggests that environmentally mediated modification of vocal behavior may have occurred, but that the resulting changes were quite limited.