|
|
Gould, J. L. (2004). Thinking about thinking: how Donald R. Griffin (1915-2003) remade animal behavior. Anim. Cogn., 7(1), 1–4.
|
|
|
|
Czeschlik, T. (1998). Animal cognition – the phylogeny and ontogeny of cognitive abilities. Anim. Cogn., 1(1), 1–2.
|
|
|
|
Fountain, S. B., Rowan, J. D., & Benson, D. M. J. (1999). Rule learning in rats: serial tracking in interleaved patterns. Anim. Cogn., 2(1), 41–54.
Abstract: Humans have the ability to chunk together information from nonadjacent serial positions in sequential patterns. For example, human subjects can extrapolate the pattern, A-M-B-N-C-O-D-P-E-..., to find the missing element, Q, by sorting pattern elements into two component interleaved subpatterns: A-B-C-D-E and M-N-O-P-... Two experiments investigated the ability of rats to reorganize pattern elements from nonadjacent serial positions into chunks not presented by the experimenter. Rats learned either a structured or unstructured sequence interleaved with elements of a repeating sequence (experiment 1) or an alternation sequence (experiment 2). In both experiments, rats learned the interleaved subpatterns at different rates. Acquisition rate was correlated with the structural properties of component subpatterns and the nature of the rules required to describe the interleaved subpatterns. The results indicate that rats are sensitive to the organization of nonadjacent elements in serial patterns and that they can detect and sort structural relationships in interleaved patterns.
|
|
|
|
Cook, R. G., & Tauro, T. L. (1999). Object-goal positioning influences spatial representation in rats. Anim. Cogn., 2(1), 55–62.
Abstract: Three tests investigated how the geometric relation between object/landmarks and goals influenced spatial choice behavior in rats. Two groups searched for hidden food in an object-filled circular arena containing 24 small poles. For the “Proximal” group, four distinct objects in a square configuration were placed close to four baited poles. For the “Distal” group, the identical configuration of objects was rotated 45° relative to the poles containing the hidden food. The Proximal group learned to locate the baited poles more quickly than the Distal group. Tests with removed and rearranged landmarks indicated that the two groups learned to use the objects differently. The results suggested that close proximity of objects to goals encouraged their use as beacons, while greater distance of objects from goals resulted in the global encoding of the geometric properties of the arena and the use of the objects as landmarks.
|
|
|
|
De Lillo,, C. De Lillo, Floreano,, D. Floreano, Antinucci,, & F. Antinucci. (2001). Transitive choices by a simple, fully connected, backpropagation neural network: implications for the comparative study of transitive inference. Anim. Cogn., 4(1), 61–68.
Abstract: In search of the minimal requirements for transitive reasoning, a simple neural network was trained and tested on the non-verbal version of the conventional “five-term-series task” – a paradigm used with human adults, children and a variety of non-human species. The transitive performance of the network was analogous in several aspects to that reported for children and animals. The three effects usually associated with transitive choices i.e. “symbolic distance”, “lexical marking” and “end-anchor”, were also clearly shown by the neural network. In a second experiment, where the training conditions were manipulated, the network failed to match the behavioural pattern reported for human adults in the test following an ordered presentation of the premises. However, it mimicked young children's performance when tested with a novel comparison term. Although we do not intend to suggest a new model of transitive inference, we conclude, in line with other authors, that a simple error-correcting rule can generate transitive behaviour similar to the choice pattern of children and animals in the binary form of the five-term-series task without requiring high-order logical or paralogical abilities. The analysis of the training history and of the final internal structure of the network reveals the associative strategy employed. However, our results indicate that the scope of the associative strategy used by the network might be limited. The extent to which the conventional five-term-series task, in absence of appropriate manipulations of training and testing conditions, is suitable to detect cognitive differences across species is also discussed on the basis of our results.
|
|
|
|
Xia, L., Siemann, M., & Delius, J. D. (2000). Matching of numerical symbols with number of responses by pigeons. Anim. Cogn., 3(1), 35–43.
Abstract: Pigeons were trained to peck a certain number of times on a key that displayed one of several possible numerical symbols. The particular symbol displayed indicated the number of times that the key had to be pecked. The pigeons signalled the completion of the requirement by operating a separate key. They received a food reward for correct response sequences and time-out penalties for incorrect response sequences. In the first experiment nine pigeons learned to allocate 1, 2, 3 or 4 pecks to the corresponding numerosity symbols s1, s2, s3 and s4 with levels of accuracy well above chance. The second experiment explored the maximum set of numerosities that the pigeons were capable of handling concurrently. Six of the pigeons coped with an s1-s5 task and four pigeons even managed an s1-s6 task with performances that were significantly above chance. Analysis of response times suggested that the pigeons were mainly relying on a number-based rather than on a time-based strategy.
|
|
|
|
Rasa, O. A. E. (1998). To stay or to leave? Decision rules for partner species relocation in two symbiotic pairs of desert beetles. Anim. Cogn., 1(1), 47–54.
Abstract: Four nocturnal Kalahari desert tenebrionid beetles live in closely associated species pairs. The larger member of each pair, Parastizopus and Gonopus, are the primary burrowers while their smaller associates, Eremostibes and Herpiscius, inhabit the burrows with them and feed on detritus the larger beetles carry in. During summer drought, the two large species have different emergence times, surface activity patterns (vagilities) and different probabilities that burrows will be reoccupied before sunrise or remain empty for longer periods. Because their partners leave the burrows, the smaller species must make a decision either to stay in the expectation of a burrow being reinhabited, or leave and locate a new partner. The vagility and burrow fidelity of the associating species were studied using marked individuals in free-living populations. Field inclusion/exclusion experiments to test what influences the decision process showed that neither continual partner presence nor food induced the smaller beetles to remain. Different percentages, depending on species, left overnight. For both associates, these proportions corresponded exactly to the probability that the burrow would not be inhabited by their partner species the next day. Neither species predicted the probability of burrow reoccupation after a short vacancy and adopted a “waiting” strategy.
|
|
|
|
Call, J., Agnetta, B., & Tomasello, M. (2000). Cues that chimpanzees do and do not use to find hidden objects. Anim. Cogn., 3(1), 23–34.
Abstract: Chimpanzees follow conspecific and human gaze direction reliably in some situations, but very few chimpanzees reliably use gaze direction or other communicative signals to locate hidden food in the object-choice task. Three studies aimed at exploring factors that affect chimpanzee performance in this task are reported. In the first study, vocalizations and other noises facilitated the performance of some chimpanzees (only a minority). In the second study, various behavioral cues were given in which a human experimenter either touched, approached, or actually lifted and looked under the container where the food was hidden. Each of these cues led to enhanced performance for only a very few individuals. In the third study – a replication with some methodological improvements of a previous experiment – chimpanzees were confronted with two experimenters giving conflicting cues about the location of the hidden food, with one of them (the knower) having witnessed the hiding process and the other (the guesser) not. In the crucial test in which a third experimenter did the hiding, no chimpanzee found the food at above chance levels. Overall, in all three studies, by far the best performers were two individuals who had been raised in infancy by humans. It thus seems that while chimpanzees are very good at “behavior reading” of various sorts, including gaze following, they do not understand the communicative intentions (informative intentions) behind the looking and gesturing of others – with the possible exception of enculturated chimpanzees, who still do not understand the differential significance of looking and gesturing done by people who have different knowledge about states of affairs in the world.
|
|
|
|
Byrne, R. (2002). When cognitive psychology met Japanese primatology. Anim. Cogn., 5(1), 59–60.
|
|
|
|
Mercado, E. I. I. I., Uyeyama, R. U., Pack, A. A., & Herman, L. M. (1999). Memory for action events in the bottlenosed dolphin. Anim. Cogn., 2(1), 17–25.
Abstract: We investigated whether a bottlenosed dolphin’s ability to recall and repeat actions on command would immediately generalize to actions performed with specified objects. The dolphin was tested on her ability to repeat 18 novel behaviors performed with potentially interchangeable objects specified using an artificial gestural language. Such “action events” were correctly repeated at above chance levels, indicating that the dolphin had access to memories of those events. Performance levels were, however, lower than in previous tests. The dolphin appeared to have difficulty recalling which object an action was performed with. Previous research has demonstrated that animals can recall features of their environment and features of their actions independently of one another. The results of this study demonstrate (1) that the dolphin’s concept of repeating extends beyond simply accessing memories of movement patterns, and (2) that dolphins’ memories of past events incorporate representations of both self-performed acts and objects, locations, or gestural instructions.
|
|
