|
Sutton J.E., & Roberts W.A. (1998). Do pigeons show incidental timing? Some experiments and a suggested hierarchical framework for the study of attention in animal cognition. Behav. Process., 44, 263–275.
|
|
Mercado E., Killebrew D.A., Pack A.A., Macha I.V.B., & Herman L.M. (2000). Generalization of 'same-different' classification abilities in bottlenosed dolphins. Behav. Process., 50, 79–94.
|
Poling, A., Thomas, J., Hall-Johnson, E., & Picker, M. (1985). Self-control revisited: Some factors that affect autoshaped responding. Behav. Process., 10(1-2), 77–85.
Abstract: Pigeons were exposed to autoshaping procedures under which 50% of red key illuminations were followed by 9-sec food deliveries, and 50% of blue key illuminations were followed by 3-sec food deliveries. When all key illuminations were 6 sec, pigeons preferred the red stimulus. Subsequent manipulations demonstrated that preference could be shifted to the blue stimulus by either increasing the duration of the red stimulus or imposing a delay interval between the offset of that stimulus and food delivery. A final experiment demonstrated that, in two of three subjects, preference for key illuminations associated with longer, but delayed, food deliveries generally increased as the duration of all key illuminations was lengthened. These results, obtained under conditions where keypecking had no programmed consequences, are similar to those previously observed under procedures involving a positive response-food dependency.
|
Perusse, D., & Lefebvre, L. (1985). Grouped sequential exploitation of food patches in a flock feeder, the feral pigeon. Behav. Process., 11(1), 39–52.
Abstract: Feral and laboratory flocks of rock doves ( ) show a pattern of grouped sequential exploitation when simultaneously presented with two dispersed, depleting patches of seed. This behavior contrasts with the ideal free distribution pattern shown when patches are small and concentrated. Grouped sequential exploitation consists of two phases: all pigeons first land together and feed at one patch, then leave one by one for the other patch. Departure times of individuals for the second patch are correlated with feeding rate at patch 1, which is in turn correlated with position in the dominance hierarchy. The decision to switch from patch 1 to patch 2 improves individual feeding rates in all cases, but is done slightly later than it should according to optimal foraging theory.
|
Shettleworth, S. J. (2005). Taking the best for learning. Behav. Process., 69(2), 147–9; author reply 159–63.
Abstract: Examples of how animals learn when multiple, sometimes redundant, cues are present provide further examples not considered by Hutchinson and Gigerenzer that seem to fit the principle of taking the best. “The best” may the most valid cue in the present circumstances; evolution may also produce species-specific biases to use the most functionally relevant cues.
|
Byrne, T., Sutphin, G., & Poling, A. (1998). Acquisition, extinction, and reacquisition of responding with delayed and immediate reinforcement. Behav. Process., 43(1), 97–101.
Abstract: The present study investigated acquisition, extinction, and reacquisition of free-operant responding when rats' lever presses produced water after a resetting delay of 0, 10, 20, or 30 s. Results indicated that: (1) responding was acquired rapidly at all delays without shaping or autoshaping; (2) resistance to extinction was directly related to delay length and inversely related to intermittency of reinforcement; (3) responding acquired with delayed reinforcement recovered less rapidly from extinction, and was less efficient, than responding acquired with immediate reinforcement. Comparing these results with those of studies using discrete-trials and free-operant procedures with no reinforcement delay suggest that the specific conditions under which behavior is maintained determines, in part, the behavioral effects of delay and intermittency of reinforcement.
|
Conradt, L., & Roper, T. J. (2010). Deciding group movements: Where and when to go. Behav. Process., 84(3), 675–677.
Abstract: A group of animals can only move cohesively, if group members “somehow” reach a consensus about the timing (e.g., start) and the spatial direction/destination of the collective movement. Timing and spatial decisions usually differ with respect to the continuity of their cost/benefit distribution in such a way that, in principle, compromises are much more feasible in timing decision (e.g. median preferred time) than they are in spatial decisions. The consequence is that consensus costs connected to collective timing decisions are usually less skewed amongst group members than are consensus costs connected to spatial decisions. This, in turn, influences the evolution of decision sharing: sharing in timing decisions is most likely to evolve when conflicts are high relative to group cohesion benefits, while sharing in spatial decisions is most likely to evolve in the opposite situation. We discuss the implications of these differences for the study of collective movement decisions.
|
|
Lafferty, K. D. (2005). Look what the cat dragged in: do parasites contribute to human cultural diversity? Behav. Process., 68(3), 279–282.
|
Lefebvre, L. (1995). Ecological correlates of social learning: problems and solutions for the comparative method. Behav. Process., 35(1-3), 163–171.
Abstract: Interspecific variation in learning and cognition is often accounted for by adaptive specialization, an ecological framework where variation between species in the environmental problems they face is thought to select for quantitatively and/or qualitatively different abilities. Adaptive specialization theory relies on the comparative method for testing its hypotheses and assumes a naturally selected basis for the predicted differences. This review examines social learning as a specialization to group-living and scramble feeding competition. It points out one important problem with current studies in the area, the lack of quantitative controls for confounding variables that may cause type 1 or 2 error in comparative tests. A linear regression technique is proposed to measure and remove interspecific differences on control tests for which there is no predicted adaptive specialization; as in other areas of comparative biology, the adaptive prediction is then made on the residual deviation from the regression of these confounding variables. Examples are given from research on opportunistic Columbids, the group-living feral pigeon Columbia livia, and the territorial Zenaida dove, Zenaida aurita.
|
Heitor, F., do Mar Oom, M., & Vicente, L. (2006). Social relationships in a herd of Sorraia horses Part I. Correlates of social dominance and contexts of aggression. Behav. Process., 73(2), 170–177.
Abstract: Factors related to dominance rank and the functions of aggression were studied in a herd of Sorraia horses, Equus caballus, under extensive management. Subjects were 10 adult mares 5-18 years old and a stallion introduced into the group for breeding. Dominance relationships among mares were clear, irrespective of rank difference, and remained stable after introduction of the stallion. The dominance hierarchy was significantly linear and rank was positively correlated with age and total aggressiveness. Higher-ranking mares received lower frequency and intensity of agonistic interactions. Nevertheless, higher-ranking dominants were not more likely to elicit submission from their subordinates than lower-ranking dominants. Neither close-ranking mares nor mares with less clear dominance relationships were more aggressive towards each other. Agonistic interactions seemed to be used more importantly in regulation of space than to obtain access to food or to reassert dominance relationships. Contexts of aggression were related to mare rank. The results suggest that dominance relationships based on age as a conventional criterion were established to reduce aggressiveness in a herd where the costs of aggression are likely to outweigh the benefits.
|
