Houpt, K. A. (2007). Imprinting training and conditioned taste aversion. Behav. Process., 76, 14–16.
|
Murphy, J., & Arkins, S. (2007). Equine learning behaviour. Behav. Process., 76(1), 1–13.
Abstract: Scientists and equestrians continually seek to achieve a clearer understanding of equine learning behaviour and its implications for training. Behavioural and learning processes in the horse are likely to influence not only equine athletic success but also the usefulness of the horse as a domesticated species. However given the status and commercial importance of the animal, equine learning behaviour has received only limited investigation. Indeed most experimental studies on equine cognitive function to date have addressed behaviour, learning and conceptualisation processes at a moderately basic cognitive level compared to studies in other species. It is however, likely that the horses with the greatest ability to learn and form/understand concepts are those, which are better equipped to succeed in terms of the human-horse relationship and the contemporary training environment. Within equitation generally, interpretation of the behavioural processes and training of the desired responses in the horse are normally attempted using negative reinforcement strategies. On the other hand, experimental designs to actually induce and/or measure equine learning rely almost exclusively on primary positive reinforcement regimes. Employing two such different approaches may complicate interpretation and lead to difficulties in identifying problematic or undesirable behaviours in the horse. The visual system provides the horse with direct access to immediate environmental stimuli that affect behaviour but vision in the horse is of yet not fully investigated or understood. Further investigations of the equine visual system will benefit our understanding of equine perception, cognitive function and the subsequent link with learning and training. More detailed comparative investigations of feral or free-ranging and domestic horses may provide useful evidence of attention, stress and motivational issues affecting behavioural and learning processes in the horse. The challenge for scientists is, as always, to design and commission experiments that will investigate and provide insight into these processes in a manner that withstands scientific scrutiny.
|
Cooper, J. J. (2007). Equine learning behaviour: Common knowledge and systematic research. Behav. Process., 76, 24–26.
|
Ladewig, J. (2007). Clever Hans is still whinnying with us. Behav. Process., 76(1), 20–21.
|
Hothersall, B., & Nicol, C. (2007). Equine learning behaviour: accounting for ecological constraints and relationships with humans in experimental design. Behav. Process., 76(1), 45–48.
|
Creighton, E. (2007). Equine learning behaviour: Limits of ability and ability limits of trainers. Behav. Process., 76(1), 43–44.
|
Goodwin, D. (2007). Equine learning behaviour: What we know, what we don't and future research priorities. Behav. Process., 76, 17–19.
|
Linklater, W. L. (2007). Equine learning in a wider context--Opportunities for integrative pluralism. Behav. Process., 76, 53–56.
|
Dubuc, C., & Chapais, B. (2007). Feeding Competition in Macaca fascicularis : An Assessment of the Early Arrival Tactic. Int. J. Primatol., .
Abstract: In primate species with unidirectional dominance relationships, rank order restricts the access of nondominant females to clumped resources. However, females might attempt to bypass the rank order by reaching feeding sites before the highest ranking individuals (early arrival tactic) when there are net benefits. We therefore analyzed the order of arrival to the feeding site of the adult members of a captive group of long-tailed macaques. We used 2 experimental conditions that differed in the spatial distribution of a fixed amount of food (large vs. small patch). Though each condition induced contest competition, it was stronger in the small-patch condition. Arrival order does not correlate with dominance rank in either experimental condition. The α-male and α-female reached the feeding site 10-30 s after the beginning of the test. Some females seized on opportunities to reach the feeding site before them, especially in the large-patch condition. They used the early arrival tactic when the risks of aggression were relatively low, which subjects accomplished either by being dominant or by being nondominant but tolerated by the α-male. Social tolerance may provide individuals with an alternative means to obtain resources. In sum, variation in food abundance and distribution may affect the extent to which rank order determines order of arrival to feeding sites. A higher rank may confer priority in the choice of tactics, but not necessarily priority of access to the resources themselves.
|
Shrader, A. M., Kerley, G. I. H., Kotler, B. P., & Brown, J. S. (2007). Social information, social feding, and competition in group-living goats (Capra hircus). Behav. Ecol., 18(1), 103–107.
Abstract: There are both benefits (e.g., social information) and costs (e.g., intraspecific competition) for individuals foraging in groups. To ascertain how group-foraging goats (Capra hircus) deal with these trade-offs, we asked 1) do goats use social information to make foraging decisions and 2) how do they adjust their intake rate in light of having attracted by other group members? To establish whether goats use social information, we recorded their initial choice of different quality food patches when they were ignorant of patch quality and when they could observe others foraging. After determining that goats use social information, we recorded intake rates while they fed alone and in the presence of potential competitors. Intake rate increased as the number of competitors increased. Interestingly, lone goats achieved an intake rate that was higher than when one competitor was present but similar to when two or more competitors were present. Faster intake rates may allow herbivores to ingest a larger portion of the available food before competing group members arrive at the patch. This however, does not explain the high intake rates achieved when the goats were alone. We provide 2 potential explanations: 1) faster intake rates are a response to greater risk incurred by lone individuals, the loss of social information, and the fear of being left behind by the group and 2) when foraging alone, intake rate is no longer a trade-off between reducing competition and acquiring social information. Thus, individuals are able to feed close to their maximum rate.
|