Abstract: Subjects in conditioning experiments time their conditioned responses relative to the onsets of the conditioned stimuli (CSs). These onsets are temporal landmarks, by reference to which subjects may estimate the location of the unconditioned stimulus (US) in time. In a serial compound conditioning paradigm, a long duration CS comes on first, followed later by a second shorter CS, creating both a long-range and a short-range predictor of the US. We ask whether displacing the short-range predictor relative to the long-range predictor causes subjects to strike a compromise between the different temporal locations predicted by the two CSs. In three experiments with pigeons, we varied the training conditions so as to favor or militate against this outcome. However, in all conditions, there was no compromise; after the onset of the displaced short-range CS, the timing of conditioned responding was governed by it alone. This result contrasts with the compromises that are seen when the feeding time predicted by a CS is put in conflict with the time predicted by the circadian clock, and with the similar compromises sometimes seen when a nearby spatial landmark is displaced relative to a larger spatial context.

Abstract: The major causes of accidents with cattle, horses, and other grazing animals are: panic due to fear, male dominance aggression, or the maternal aggression of a mother protecting her newborn. Danger is inherent when handling large animals. Understanding their behavior patterns improves safety, but working with animals will never be completely safe. Calm, quiet handling and non-slip flooring are beneficial. Rough handling and excessive use of electric prods increase chances of injury to both people and animals, because fearful animals may jump, kick, or rear. Training animals to voluntarily cooperate with veterinary procedures reduces stress and improves safety. Grazing animals have a herd instinct, and a lone, isolated animal can become agitated. Providing a companion animal helps keep an animal calm.

Abstract: Staddon and Higa's (1999) trace-strength theory of timing and memory for event duration can account for pigeons' bias to “choose short” when retention intervals are introduced and to “choose long” when, following training with a fixed retention interval, retention intervals are shortened. However, it does not account for the failure of pigeons to choose short when the intertrial interval is distinct from the retention interval. That finding suggests that stimulus generalization (or ambiguity) between the intertrial interval and the retention interval may result in an effect that has been attributed to memory loss. Such artifacts must be eliminated before a theory of memory for event duration can be adequately tested.

Abstract: The effect of observational learning on the acquisition of an operant response was examined in eighteen riding horses and ponies. The test horses were randomly divided into three groups of six and individually exposed to one of three treatments. An additional horse was trained as a demonstrator, to perform the operant response. The observer horses watched either the demonstrator performing the bin-opening response (Group D+B); the demonstrator standing passively (Group D); or the operant bin in the absence of the demonstrator (Group B). Observers had access to and were free to interact with an identical bin during testing. Observers in Groups D+B and D were socially familiar with the demonstrator. Each test horse was tested once a day for 10 days. An ANOVA revealed no significant differences between treatment groups in the number of responses or the time taken to reach the learning criterion. However, there were highly significant differences between breed types, with non-warmbloods performing more bouts of opening the bin and feeding (p=0.02), feeding from the bin sooner (p=0.01) and reaching the criterion for learning sooner than warmbloods (p=0.05). There was also a significant negative linear relationship between horses' ages and time spent investigating the bin, with younger horses performing more investigative behaviour (y=-3.08x+106.86; p=0.02).

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.