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.

Abstract: Although the Piagetian framework has been used by numerous researchers to compare cognitive abilities of diverse species, the system is often criticized as implemented. I examine the various criticisms, suggest ways in which the system can be improved, and argue for the need for descriptive systems such as the Piagetian framework to complement programs that look for cellular and molecular bases or mathematical models to explain behavior.

Abstract: We investigated whether monkeys discriminate the sex of individuals from their pictures. Whole-body pictures of adult and nonadult monkeys were used as stimuli. Two male Japanese monkeys were trained for a two-choice sex categorization task in which each of two choice pictures were assigned to male and female, respectively. Following the training, the monkeys were presented with novel monkey pictures, and whether they had acquired the categorization task was tested. The results suggested that while monkeys discriminate between the pictures of adult males and females, discrimination of nonadult pictures was difficult. Partial presentations of the pictures showed that conspicuous and sexually characteristic parts (i.e., underbellies including male scrotums or breasts including female nipples) played an important role in the sex categorization.

Abstract: Squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) and capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) were tested using an expectancy violation procedure to assess whether they use an actor's gaze direction, signaled by congruent head and eye orientation, to predict subsequent behavior. The monkeys visually habituated to a repeated sequence in which the actor (a familiar human or a puppet) looked at an object and then picked it up, but they did not react strongly when the actor looked at an object but then picked up another object. Capuchin monkeys' responses in the puppet condition were slightly more suggestive of expectancy. There was no differential responding to congruent versus incongruent look-touch sequences when familiarization trials were omitted. The weak findings contrast with a strongly positive result previously reported for tamarin monkeys. Additional evidence is required before concluding that behavior prediction based on gaze cues typifies primates; other approaches for studying how they process attention cues are indicated.

Abstract: For 30 years Gallup's (Science 167:86-87, 1970) mark test, which consists of confronting a mirror-experienced test animal with its own previously altered mirror image, usually a color mark on forehead, eyebrow or ear, has delivered valuable results about the distribution of visual self-recognition in non-human primates. Chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans and, less frequently, gorillas can learn to correctly understand the reflection of their body in a mirror. However, the standard version of the mark test is good only for positively proving the existence of self-recognition. Conclusive statements about the lack of self-recognition are more difficult because of the methodological constraints of the test. This situation has led to a persistent controversy about the power of Gallup's original technique. We devised a new variant of the test which permits more unequivocal decisions about both the presence and absence of self-recognition. This new procedure was tested with marmoset monkeys (Callithrix jacchus), following extensive training with mirror-related tasks to facilitate performance in the standard mark test. The results show that a slightly altered mark test with a new marking substance (chocolate cream) can help to reliably discriminate between true negative results, indicating a real lack of ability to recognize oneself in a mirror, from false negative results that are due to methodological particularities of the standard test. Finally, an evolutionary hypothesis is put forward as to why many primates can use a mirror instrumentally – i.e. know how to use it for grasping at hidden objects – while failing in the decisive mark test.