|
Veen, P., Jefferson, R., de Smidt, J., & van der Straaten, J. (2009). Grasslands in Europe of high nature value. The Netherlands: Brill.
|
|
|
Zentall, T. R. (2006). Imitation: definitions, evidence, and mechanisms. Anim. Cogn., 9(4), 335–353.
Abstract: Imitation can be defined as the copying of behavior. To a biologist, interest in imitation is focused on its adaptive value for the survival of the organism, but to a psychologist, the mechanisms responsible for imitation are the most interesting. For psychologists, the most important cases of imitation are those that involve demonstrated behavior that the imitator cannot see when it performs the behavior (e.g., scratching one's head). Such examples of imitation are sometimes referred to as opaque imitation because they are difficult to account for without positing cognitive mechanisms, such as perspective taking, that most animals have not been acknowledged to have. The present review first identifies various forms of social influence and social learning that do not qualify as opaque imitation, including species-typical mechanisms (e.g., mimicry and contagion), motivational mechanisms (e.g., social facilitation, incentive motivation, transfer of fear), attentional mechanisms (e.g., local enhancement, stimulus enhancement), imprinting, following, observational conditioning, and learning how the environment works (affordance learning). It then presents evidence for different forms of opaque imitation in animals, and identifies characteristics of human imitation that have been proposed to distinguish it from animal imitation. Finally, it examines the role played in opaque imitation by demonstrator reinforcement and observer motivation. Although accounts of imitation have been proposed that vary in their level of analysis from neural to cognitive, at present no theory of imitation appears to be adequate to account for the varied results that have been found.
|
|
|
Heyes, C. M. (1994). Social learning in animals: categories and mechanisms. Biol. Rev., 69(2), 207–231.
Abstract: There has been relatively little research on the psychological mechanisms of social learning. This may be due, in part, to the practice of distinguishing categories of social learning in relation to ill-defined mechanisms (Davis, 1973; Galef, 1988). This practice both makes it difficult to identify empirically examples of different types of social learning, and gives the false impression that the mechanisms responsible for social learning are clearly understood. It has been proposed that social learning phenomena be subsumed within the categorization scheme currently used by investigators of asocial learning. This scheme distinguishes categories of learning according to observable conditions, namely, the type of experience that gives rise to a change in an animal (single stimulus vs. stimulus-stimulus relationship vs. response-reinforcer relationship), and the type of behaviour in which this change is detected (response evocation vs. learnability) (Rescorla, 1988). Specifically, three alignments have been proposed: (i) stimulus enhancement with single stimulus learning, (ii) observational conditioning with stimulus-stimulus learning, or Pavlovian conditioning, and (iii) observational learning with response-reinforcer learning, or instrumental conditioning. If, as the proposed alignments suggest, the conditions of social and asocial learning are the same, there is some reason to believe that the mechanisms underlying the two sets of phenomena are also the same. This is so if one makes the relatively uncontroversial assumption that phenomena which occur under similar conditions tend to be controlled by similar mechanisms. However, the proposed alignments are intended to be a set of hypotheses, rather than conclusions, about the mechanisms of social learning; as a basis for further research in which animal learning theory is applied to social learning. A concerted attempt to apply animal learning theory to social learning, to find out whether the same mechanisms are responsible for social and asocial learning, could lead both to refinements of the general theory, and to a better understanding of the mechanisms of social learning. There are precedents for these positive developments in research applying animal learning theory to food aversion learning (e.g. Domjan, 1983; Rozin & Schull, 1988) and imprinting (e.g. Bolhuis, de Vox & Kruit, 1990; Hollis, ten Cate & Bateson, 1991). Like social learning, these phenomena almost certainly play distinctive roles in the antogeny of adaptive behaviour, and they are customarily regarded as 'special kinds' of learning (Shettleworth, 1993).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
|
|
|
Whiten, A., Horner, V., Litchfield, C. A., & Marshall-Pescini, S. (2004). How do apes ape? Learn. Behav., 32(1), 36–52.
Abstract: In the wake of telling critiques of the foundations on which earlier conclusions were based, the last 15 years have witnessed a renaissance in the study of social learning in apes. As a result, we are able to review 31 experimental studies from this period in which social learning in chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans has been investigated. The principal question framed at the beginning of this era, Do apes ape? has been answered in the affirmative, at least in certain conditions. The more interesting question now is, thus, How do apes ape? Answering this question has engendered richer taxonomies of the range of social-learning processes at work and new methodologies to uncover them. Together, these studies suggest that apes ape by employing a portfolio of alternative social-learning processes in flexibly adaptive ways, in conjunction with nonsocial learning. We conclude by sketching the kind of decision tree that appears to underlie the deployment of these alternatives.
|
|
|
Caldwell, C. A., & Whiten, A. (2004). Testing for social learning and imitation in common marmosets, Callithrix jacchus, using an artificial fruit. Anim. Cogn., 7(2), 77–85.
Abstract: We tested for social learning and imitation in common marmosets using an artificial foraging task and trained conspecific demonstrators. We trained a demonstrator marmoset to open an artificial fruit, providing a full demonstration of the task to be learned. Another marmoset provided a partial demonstration, controlling for stimulus enhancement effects, by eating food from the outside of the apparatus. We thus compared three observer groups, each consisting of four animals: those that received the full demonstration, those that received the partial demonstration, and a control group that saw no demonstration prior to testing. Although none of the observer marmosets succeeded in opening the artificial fruit during the test periods, there were clear effects of demonstration type. Those that saw the full demonstration manipulated the apparatus more overall, whereas those from the control group manipulated it the least of the three groups. Those from the full-demonstration group also contacted the particular parts of the artificial fruit that they had seen touched (localised stimulus enhancement) to a greater extent than the other two groups. There was also an interaction between the number of hand and mouth touches made to the artificial fruit for the full- and partial-demonstration groups. Whether or not these data represent evidence for imitation is discussed. We also propose that the clear differences between the groups suggest that social learning mechanisms provide real benefits to these animals in terms of developing novel food-processing skills analogous to the one presented here.
|
|
|
Whiten, A., Custance, D. M., Gomez, J. C., Teixidor, P., & Bard, K. A. (1996). Imitative learning of artificial fruit processing in children (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J Comp Psychol, 110(1), 3–14.
Abstract: Observational learning in chimpanzees and young children was investigated using an artificial fruit designed as an analog of natural foraging problems faced by primates. Each of 3 principal components could be removed in 2 alternative ways, demonstration of only one of which was watched by each subject. This permitted subsequent imitation by subjects to be distinguished from stimulus enhancement. Children aged 2-4 years evidenced imitation for 2 components, but also achieved demonstrated outcomes through their own techniques. Chimpanzees relied even more on their own techniques, but they did imitate elements of 1 component of the task. To our knowledge, this is the first experimental evidence of chimpanzee imitation in a functional task designed to simulate foraging behavior hypothesized to be transmitted culturally in the wild.
|
|
|
van Heel, M. C. V., Kroekenstoel, A. M., van Dierendonck, M. C., van Weeren, P. R., & Back, W. (2006). Uneven feet in a foal may develop as a consequence of lateral grazing behaviour induced by conformational traits. Equine. Vet. J., 38(7), 646–651.
Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Conformational traits are important in breeding, since they may be indicative for performance ability and susceptibility to injuries. OBJECTIVES: To study whether certain desired conformational traits of foals are related to lateralised behaviour while foraging and to the development of uneven feet. METHODS: Twenty-four Warmblood foals, born and raised at the same location, were studied for a year. Foraging behaviour was observed by means of weekly 10 min scan-sampling for 8 h. A preference test (PT) was developed to serve as a standardised tool to determine laterality. The foals were evaluated at age 3, 15, 27 and 55 weeks. The PT and distal limb conformation were used to study the relation between overall body conformation, laterality and the development of uneven feet. Pressure measurements were used to determine the loading patterns under the feet. RESULTS: About 50% of the foals developed a significant preference to protract the same limb systematically while grazing, which resulted in uneven feet and subsequently uneven loading patterns. Foals with relatively long limbs and small heads were predisposed to develop laterality and, consequently unevenness. CONCLUSIONS: Conformational traits may stimulate the development of laterality and therefore indirectly cause uneven feet.
|
|
|
Bachmann, I., Audige, L., & Stauffacher, M. (2003). Risk factors associated with behavioural disorders of crib-biting, weaving and box-walking in Swiss horses. Equine Vet J, 35(2), 158–163.
Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Studies on the prevalence of behavioural disorders in horses and on associated risk factors have revealed inconsistent results. There are many studies on the neuropharmacological, surgical or mechanical therapy of stereotypies, but little is known about their causation. OBJECTIVES: To explore risk factors associated with the occurrence of behavioural disorders in horses. METHODS: A sample of horse owners, selected randomly and representative for Switzerland, was contacted in a postal survey. Answers were provided for 622 stables (response rate 35.2%). Individual data of 2,341 horses were examined with path analysis (multivariable linear and logistic regression), and adjustment made for possible confounding effects due to age and breed. RESULTS: Out of 60 possible risk factors, 11 were associated with the outcome at the univariable level (null-hypothesis path model) and 3 factors remained after the backward logistic regression procedure. Mature Warmbloods and Thoroughbreds, assessed by the owners to be reactive, fed 4 times a day and without daily pasture, had increased odds of displaying crib-biting, weaving and box-walking. Furthermore, indirect associations of 5 factors with the outcome were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The final logistic regression model of risk factors leads to the hypotheses that causal prevention of stereotypic behaviours should be based upon housing and management conditions which allow tactile contact with other horses (e.g. mutual grooming), daily free movement (paddock or pasture), as well as the provision of high amounts of roughage but of little or no concentrates. POTENTIAL CLINICAL RELEVANCE: It is one of the aims of population medicine to prevent the development of behavioural disorders. Further research is needed to test the concluding hypotheses in experimental studies or to verify them in the context of similar observational studies.
|
|
|
Rubin, L., Oppegard, C., & Hindz, H. F. (1980). The effect of varying the temporal distribution of conditioning trials on equine learning behavior. J. Anim Sci., 50(6), 1184–1187.
Abstract: Two experiments were conducted to study the effect of varying the temporal distrbution of conditioning sessions on equine learning behavior. In the first experiment, 15 ponies were trained to clear a small hurdle in response to a buzzer in order to avoid a mild electric shock. Three treatments were used. One group received 10 learning trials daily, seven times a week; one group was trained in the same fashion two times a week and one group was trained once a week. The animals conditioned only once a week achieved a high level of performance in significantly fewer sessions than the ones conditioned seven times a week, although elapsed time from start of training to completion was two to three times greater for the former group. The twice-a-week group learned at an intermediate rate. In the second experiment, the ponies were rearranged into three new groups. They were taught to move backward a specific distance in response to a visual cue in order to avoid an electric shock. Again, one group was trained seven times a week, one group was trained two times and one group was trained once a week. As in the first experiment, the animals trained once a week achieved the learning criteria in significantly fewer sessions than those trained seven times a week, but, as in trial 1, elapsed time from start to finish was greater for them. The two times-a-week group learned at a rate in-between the rates of the other two groups.
|
|
|
Rhodin, M., Johnston, C., Holm, K. R., Wennerstrand, J., & Drevemo, S. (2005). The influence of head and neck position on kinematics of the back in riding horses at the walk and trot. Equine Vet J, 37(1), 7–11.
Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: A common opinion among riders and in the literature is that the positioning of the head and neck influences the back of the horse, but this has not yet been measured objectively. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of head and neck position on the kinematics of the back in riding horses. METHODS: Eight Warmblood riding horses in regular work were studied on a treadmill at walk and trot with the head and neck in 3 different predetermined positions achieved by side reins attached to the bit and to an anticast roller. The 3-dimensional movement of the thoracolumbar spine was measured from the position of skin-fixed markers recorded by infrared videocameras. RESULTS: Head and neck position influenced the movements of the back, especially at the walk. When the head was fixed in a high position at the walk, the flexion-extension movement and lateral bending of the lumbar back, as well as the axial rotation, were significantly reduced when compared to movements with the head free or in a low position. At walk, head and neck position also significantly influenced stride length, which was shortest with the head in a high position. At trot, the stride length was independent of head position. CONCLUSIONS: Restricting and restraining the position and movement of the head and neck alters the movement of the back and stride characteristics. With the head and neck in a high position stride length and flexion and extension of the caudal back were significantly reduced. POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: Use of side reins in training and rehabilitation programmes should be used with an understanding of the possible effects on the horse's back.
|
|