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: Auditory-visual processing of species-specific vocalizations was investigated in a female chimpanzee named Pan. The basic task was auditory-visual matching-to-sample, where Pan was required to choose the vocalizer from two test movies in response to a chimpanzee's vocalization. In experiment 1, movies of vocalizing and silent faces were paired as the test movies. The results revealed that Pan recognized the status of other chimpanzees whether they vocalized or not. In experiment 2, two different types of vocalizing faces of an identical individual were prepared as the test movies. Pan recognized the correspondence between vocalization types and faces. These results suggested that chimpanzees possess crossmodal representations of their vocalizations, as do humans. Together with the ability of vocal individual recognition, this ability might reflect chimpanzees' profound understanding of the status of other individuals.

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: Success in tasks requiring categorization of pictorial stimuli does not prove that a subject understands what the pictures stand for. The ability to achieve representational insight is by no means a trivial one because it exceeds mere detection of 2-D features present in both the pictorial images and their referents. So far, evidence for such an ability in nonhuman species is weak and inconclusive. Here, the authors report evidence of representational insight in pigeons. After being trained on pictures of incomplete human figures, the birds responded significantly more to pictures of the previously missing parts than to nonrepresentative stimuli, which demonstrates that they actually recognized the pictures' representational content.

Abstract: Past studies of galliform anti-predator behavior show that they discriminate between aerial and ground predators, producing distinctive, functionally referential vocalizations to each class. Within the category of aerial predators, however, studies using overhead models, video images and observations of natural encounters with birds of prey report little evidence that galliforms discriminate between different raptor species. This pattern suggests that the aerial alarm response may be triggered by general features of objects moving in the air. To test whether these birds are also sensitive to more detailed differences between raptor species, adult chickens with young were presented with variously sized trained raptors (small, intermediate, large) under controlled conditions. In response to the small hawk, there was a decline in anti-predator aggression and in aerial alarm calling as the young grew older and less vulnerable to attack by a hawk of this size. During the same developmental period, responses to the largest hawk, which posed the smallest threat to the young at all stages, did not change; there were intermediate changes at this time in response to the middle-sized hawk. Thus the anti-predator behavior of the adult birds varied in an adaptive fashion, changing as a function of both chick age and risk. We discuss these results in light of current issues concerning the cognitive mechanisms underlying alarm calling behavior in animals.