|
|
McKinley, J., & Sambrook, T. D. (2000). Use of human-given cues by domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and horses (Equus caballus). Anim. Cogn., 3(1), 13–22.
Abstract: Sixteen domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and four horses (Equus caballus) were tested for their ability to use human-given manual and facial cues in an object-choice task. Two of the four horses used touch as a cue and one horse successfully used pointing. The performance of the dogs was considerably better, with 12 subjects able to use pointing as a cue, 4 able to use head orientation and 2 able to use eye gaze alone. Group analysis showed that the dogs performed significantly better in all experimental conditions than during control trials. Dogs were able to use pointing cues even when the cuer's body was closer to the incorrect object. Working gundogs with specialised training used pointing more successfully than pet dogs and gundog breeds performed better than non-gundog breeds. The results of this experiment suggest that animals' use of human given communicative signals depends on cognitive ability, the evolutionary consequences of domestication and enculturation by humans within the individual's lifetime.
|
|
|
|
Miyashita, Y., Nakajima, S., & Imada, H. (2000). Differential outcome effect in the horse. J Exp Anal Behav, 74(2), 245–253.
Abstract: hree horses were trained with a discrimination task in which the color (blue or yellow) of a center panel signaled the correct (left or right) response (lever press). Reinforcing outcomes for the two correct color-position combinations (blue-left and yellow-right) were varied across phases. Discrimination performance was better when the combinations were differentially reinforced by two types of food (chopped carrot pieces and a solid food pellet) than when the combinations were randomly reinforced by these outcomes or when there was a common reinforcer for each of the correct combinations. However, the discrimination performance established by the differential outcome procedure was still 80% to 90% correct, and an analysis of two-trial sequences revealed that the stimulus color of the preceding trial interfered with discrimination performance on a given trial. Our demonstration of the differential outcome effect in the horse and its further analysis might contribute to more efficient control of equine behavior in the laboratory as well as in horse sports.
|
|
|
|
Sapolsky, R. M., Romero, L. M., & Munck, A. U. (2000). How Do Glucocorticoids Influence Stress Responses? Integrating Permissive, Suppressive, Stimulatory, and Preparative Actions. Endocr Rev, 21(1), 55–89.
Abstract: The secretion of glucocorticoids (GCs) is a classic endocrine response to stress. Despite that, it remains controversial as to what purpose GCs serve at such times. One view, stretching back to the time of Hans Selye, posits that GCs help mediate the ongoing or pending stress response, either via basal levels of GCs permitting other facets of the stress response to emerge efficaciously, and/or by stress levels of GCs actively stimulating the stress response. In contrast, a revisionist viewpoint posits that GCs suppress the stress response, preventing it from being pathologically overactivated. In this review, we consider recent findings regarding GC action and, based on them, generate criteria for determining whether a particular GC action permits, stimulates, or suppresses an ongoing stress-response or, as an additional category, is preparative for a subsequent stressor. We apply these GC actions to the realms of cardiovascular function, fluid volume and hemorrhage, immunity and inflammation, metabolism, neurobiology, and reproductive physiology. We find that GC actions fall into markedly different categories, depending on the physiological endpoint in question, with evidence for mediating effects in some cases, and suppressive or preparative in others. We then attempt to assimilate these heterogeneous GC actions into a physiological whole.
|
|
|
|
Dyer, F. C. (2000). Individual cognition and group movement: insights from social insects. In P. Garber, & S. Boinski (Eds.), Group Movement in Social Primates and Other Animals: Patterns, Processes, and Cognitive Implications.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
|
|
|
|
Wilson O. E.,. (2000). Sociobiology: The new Synthesis (Vol. 25th edition). Cambridge: Belknap Press.
|
|
|
|
Beauchamp, G. (2000). Individual Differences In Activity And Exploration Influence Leadership In Pairs Of Foraging Zebra Finches. Behaviour, 137, 301–314.
Abstract: This study investigated the role of dominance and level of activity and exploration on leadership in zebra finches (Taenopygia guttata) searching for food. In pairs of zebra finches fairly matched in size and that experienced the same level of food deprivation, the same bird consistently reached first one foraging patch over several trials. The same pattern of arrival to food occurred when resources were provided in two distant patches available concurrently, a situation that would potentially allow subordinates a greater access to resources. In further testing, the formation of new pairs with the same birds led to several changes in leadership, indicating that leadership is not an absolute feature. The member of a pair that proved to be the most active and exploratory during independent, solitary trials became the leader in nearly all pairs tested. The same pattern held true in newly rearranged pairs where individuals often experienced changes in dominance status. Dominance failed to be associated with leadership in all tests. The results suggest that in a relatively egalitarian species, level of activity and exploration may be a stronger predictor of leadership than dominance.
|
|
|
|
Mandal, M. K., Bulman-Fleming, M. B., & Tiwari, G. (Eds.). (2000). Side Bias: A Neuropsychological Perspective. Netherlands: Springer.
Abstract: The beginnings of the idea about a book on “side bias” began in the year
1994 during the senior editor"s research association with late Professor M.P.
Bryden and colleagues at the University of Waterloo, Canada. Over many
discussions with Professor Bryden, it was clear that the concept of “side bias”
encompasses all aspects of motor behaviour within the context of human
(and non-human animal) laterality. The tendency to favour one side or limb
over the other is important not only from the perspective of understanding
the functional asymmetries of the cerebral hemispheres, but also to an
understanding of a myriad of aspects of human behaviour, as the
contributions to this volume will attest.
By side bias, most people would think of bias in terms of hand
preference or performance. The phenomenon of side bias, however, is more
general and influences motor behaviour of all kinds, ranging from simple
hand movement to complex behaviours like facial expression and attention.
Therefore, the concept has been operationalized in terms of bias reflected in
the motor expression of paired (such as hands, feet, eyes, or ears) or
nonpaired organs (such as the face) as a function of preference, performance
or attentional/intentional factors. ....
More see: http://www.springerlink.com/content/gr1726/front-matter.pdf
|
|
|
|
Houpt, K., & Kusunose, R. (2000). Genetics of behaviour. In A. Ruvinsky A. T. Bowling (Ed.), The Genetics of the Horse (pp. 281–306). New York: CABI Publishing.
|
|
|
|
Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (2000). Social Awareness in Monkeys. Amer. Zool., 40(6), 902–909.
Abstract: Tests of self-awareness in nonhuman primates have to date been concerned almost entirely with the recognition of an animal's reflection in a mirror. By contrast, we know much less about non-human primates' perception of their place within a social network, or of their understanding of themselves as individuals with unique sets of social relationships. Here we review evidence that monkeys who fail the mirror test may nonetheless behave as if they recognize themselves as distinct individuals, each of whom occupies a unique place in society and has a specific set of relations with others. A free-ranging vervet monkey, baboon, or macaque recognizes other members of his group as individuals. He also recognizes matrilineal kin groups, linear dominance rank orders, and behaves as if he recognizes his own unique place within them. This sense of “social self” in monkeys, however, is markedly different from self-awareness in humans. Although monkeys may behave in ways that accurately place themselves within a social network, they are unaware of the knowledge that allows them to do so: they do not know what they know, cannot reflect on what they know, and cannot become the object of their own attention.
|
|
|
|
Foster, K. R., & Ratnieks, F. L. W. (2000). Social insects: Facultative worker policing in a wasp. Nature, 407(6805), 692–693.
Abstract: Kin-selection theory predicts that in social-insect colonies where the queen has mated multiple times, the workers will enforce cooperation by policing each other's reproduction1, 2, 3, 4. We have discovered a species, the wasp Dolichovespula saxonica, in which some queens mate once and others mate many times, and in which workers frequently attempt reproduction, allowing this prediction to be tested directly. We find that multiple mating by the queen leads to mutual policing by workers, whereas single mating does not.
|
|
