|
Dawkins, M. S. (2001). Who Needs Consciousness? Animal Welfare, 10, 19–29.
|
|
Taylor, J. G. (2001). What do Neuronal Network Models of the Mind Indicate about Animal Consciousness? Animal Welfare, 10, 63–75.
|
|
Wemelsfelder, F. (2001). The Inside and Outside Aspects of Consciousness: Complementary Approaches to the Study of Animal Emotion. Animal Welfare, 10, 129–139.
|
|
Lea, S. E. G. (2001). Anticipation and Memory as Criteria for Special Welfare Consideration. Animal Welfare, 10, 195–208.
|
|
Held, S., Mendl, M., Devereux, C., & Byrne, R. W. (2001). Studies in Social Cognition: From Primates to Pigs. Animal Welfare, 10, 209–217.
|
|
Giulotto, E. (2001). Will horse genetics create better champions? Trends Genet., 17, 166.
|
|
Feh, C. (2001). Alliances between stallions are more than just multimale groups: reply to Linklater & Cameron (2000). Anim. Behav., 61, F27–F30.
|
Zentall, T. R. (2001). Imitation In Animals: Evidence, Function, And Mechanisms. Cybern Syst, 32, 53–96.
Abstract: The terms sociallearning and social influence have been used descriptively and theoretically to characterize a broad range of animal behavior from physical antipredatory adaptations such as eye spots, which are totally under genetic control, to the human capacity for the exaggeration of individual characteristics, known as caricature, which are largely under cognitive control. In the present review, the various forms of social influence and social learning are identified and distinghished from imitation, a term that generally has been reserved for behavioral matching that cannot be accounted for using simpler specifically predisposed, motivational, or learning mechanisms. It is suggested that much of the ambiguity in the literature concerning the various forms of social learning can be attributed to the distinction between the function of a behavior and the mechanisms responsible for its occurrence. Finally, the various mechanisms that have been proposed to account for imitative learning are presented and an attempt is made to evaluate them.
|
Seferta, A., Guay, P. - J., Marzinotto, E., & Lefebvre, L. (2001). Learning Differences between Feral Pigeons and Zenaida Doves: The Role of Neophobia and Human Proximity. Ethology, 107, 281–293.
Abstract: Learning differences predicted from ecological variables can be confounded with differences in wariness of novel stimuli (neophobia). Previous work on feral pigeons (Columba livia), as well as on group-feeding and territorial zenaida doves (Zenaida aurita), reported individual and social learning differences predicted from social foraging mode. In the present study, we show that speed of learning a foraging task covaries with neophobia and latency to feed from a familiar dish in the three types of columbids. Pigeons were much faster than either territorial or group-feeding zenaida doves on all tests conducted in captivity, but showed unexpectedly strong neophobia in some urban flocks during field tests. Human proximity strongly affected performance in group-feeding doves both in the field and in captivity. They were slightly faster at learning than their territorial conspecifics in cage tests. In multiple regressions, species identity, but not social foraging mode, significantly predicted individual variation in learning, as did individual variation in neophobia. Wariness of novel stimuli and species differences associated with artificial selection appear to be more important than foraging mode and wariness of humans in accounting for learning differences between these columbids.
|
|
Clayton NS, Griffiths DP, Emery NJ, & Dickinson A. (2001). Elements of episodic-like memory in animals. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci., 356, 1483.
|
