|
Wolff, A., & Hausberger, M. (1996). Learning and memorisation of two different tasks in horses: the effects of age, sex and sire. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 46(3-4), 137–143.
Abstract: Learning and memory abilities of 1-3 year old horses were assessed using instrumental and spatial tasks. No important differences were observed in the success of learning of the instrumental task (chest opening) according to sex or age. Younger females, however, seemed to learn more quickly. The offspring of a particular stallion were slower to learn than other horses. All horses memorised this task and opened the chest in a very short time in the second session. The animals that learned the task easily were not necessarily faster in the memorisation test. In the spatial task, learning ability did not seem to be related to age but more females than males were successful. The offspring of one stallion were more successful than other horses. Only 76% of the horses succeeded in the memorisation test, independently of age or sex. No correlation was found between the tasks in the latencies of either the learning or the memorisation tests for the same horses. The instrumental and spatial tasks may involve different processes.
|
|
|
Ahrendt, L. P., Christensen, J. W., & Ladewig, J. (2012). The ability of horses to learn an instrumental task through social observation. In Applied Animal Behaviour Science (Vol. 139, pp. 105–113).
Abstract: The ability of horses to learn through social observation may ease the implementation of new management systems, because the use of automatic feeders etc. by naive horses could be facilitated by observation of experienced horses. However, previous studies found no documentation for observational learning abilities in horses. This study aimed to investigate the ability of horses to learn an instrumental task from a familiar conspecific when social interaction was allowed during the demonstration. Two similar experiments were performed. In the first experiment, Observer horses (n=11) participated in ten successive demonstrations, where a trained Demonstrator opened an operant device by pushing a sliding lid aside with the muzzle in order to obtain a food reward. Immediately after the demonstrations the Observer horses were given the opportunity to operate the device alone. Control horses (n=11) were aware that the device contained food but were presented to the operant device without demonstration of the task. The learning criterion was at least two openings. Accomplishment of and latency to accomplish the learning criterion, and investigative behaviour towards the operant device were recorded. Five Observers and one Control, out of the eleven horses in each treatment group, accomplished the learning criterion. Even though this presents a high odds ratio (OR) in favour of the Observer treatment (OR=7.6), there was no significant difference between the treatment groups (P=0.15). Analysis of investigative behaviour showed, however, that the demonstrations increased the motivation of the Observer horses to investigate the device. Subsequently, a similar experiment was performed in a practical setting with 44 test horses (mixed age, gender and breed). We used the same operant device and the same number and type of demonstrations, although the horses were held on a loose rope to minimise aggression. In this second experiment, six of 23 Observer horses and five of 21 Control horses learned the instrumental task, representing no influence of the demonstration. Thus, this study did not demonstrate an ability of horses to learn an instrumental task through observation.
|
|