Abstract: Darwin argued that between-species differences in intelligence were differences of degree, not of kind. The contemporary ecological approach to animal cognition argues that animals have evolved species-specific and problem-specific processes to solve problems associated with their particular ecological niches: thus different species use different processes, and within a species, different processes are used to tackle problems involving different inputs. This approach contrasts both with Darwin's view and with the general process view, according to which the same central processes of learning and memory are used across an extensive range of problems involving very different inputs. We review evidence relevant to the claim that the learning and memory performance of non-human animals varies according to the nature of the stimuli involved. We first discuss the resource distribution hypothesis, olfactory learning-set formation, and the 'biological constraints' literature, but find no convincing support from these topics for the ecological account of cognition. We then discuss the claim that the performance of birds in spatial tasks of learning and memory is superior in species that depend heavily upon stored food compared to species that either show less dependence upon stored food or do not store food. If it could be shown that storing species enjoy a superiority specifically in spatial (and not non-spatial) tasks, this would argue that spatial tasks are indeed solved using different processes from those used in non-spatial tasks. Our review of this literature does not find a consistent superiority of storing over non-storing birds in spatial tasks, and, in particular, no evidence of enhanced superiority of storing species when the task demands are increased, by, for example, increasing the number of items to be recalled or the duration of the retention period. We discuss also the observation that the hippocampus of storing birds is larger than that of non-storing birds, and find evidence contrary to the view that hippocampal enlargement is associated with enhanced spatial memory; we are, however, unable to suggest a convincing alternative explanation for hippocampal enlargement. The failure to find solid support for the ecological view supports the view that there are no qualitative differences in cognition between animal species in the processes of learning and memory. We also argue that our review supports our contention that speculation about the phylogenetic development and function of behavioural processes does not provide a solid basis for gaining insight into the nature of those processes. We end by confessing to a belief in one major qualitative difference in cognition in animals: we believe that humans alone are capable of acquiring language, and that it is this capacity that divides our intelligence so sharply from non-human intelligence.

Abstract: This article traces the history of scientific and empirical interval training. Scientific research has shed some light on the choice of intensity, work duration and rest periods in so-called 'interval training'. Interval training involves repeated short to long bouts of rather high intensity exercise (equal or superior to maximal lactate steady-state velocity) interspersed with recovery periods (light exercise or rest). Interval training was first described by Reindell and Roskamm and was popularised in the 1950s by the Olympic champion, Emil Zatopek. Since then middle- and long- distance runners have used this technique to train at velocities close to their own specific competition velocity. In fact, trainers have used specific velocities from 800 to 5000m to calibrate interval training without taking into account physiological markers. However, outside of the competition season it seems better to refer to the velocities associated with particular physiological responses in the range from maximal lactate steady state to the absolute maximal velocity. The range of velocities used in a race must be taken into consideration, since even world records are not run at a constant pace. Copyright 2001 Adis International

Abstract: When asked to hold a young infant in their arms, most adults hold on the left side (Harris, 1997). In a prior study, we found the same bias when we asked adults merely to imagine holding an infant in their arms (Harris, Almerigi, & Kirsch, 1999). It has been hypothesized that the left-side bias is the product of right-hemisphere arousal accompanying certain aspects of the act, causing attention to be driven to the contralateral, or left, side of personal space. Left-side holding, whether actual or imagined, thus would be consistent with the direction to which the holder's attention has been endogenously directed. We tested this hypothesis by giving 250 college students the “imagine-holding” task and then, as an independent measure of lateralized hemispheric arousal, a 34-item Chimeric Faces Test (CFT). On the “imagine” test, a significant majority reported a left-side hold, and, on the CFT, left-side holders had a significantly stronger left-hemispace bias than right-side holders, although both left- and right- side holders had left-hemispace CFT biases. The results thus support the attentional-arousal hypothesis but indicate that other factors are contributing as well.