|
|
Baragli, P., Mariti, C., Petri, L., De Giorgio, F., & Sighieri, C. (2011). Does attention make the difference? Horses' response to human stimulus after 2 different training strategies. J Vet Behav Clin Appl Res, 6(1), 31–38.
Abstract: We hypothesized that in an open environment, horses cope with a series of challenges in
their interactions with human beings. If the horse is not physically constrained and is free to move
in a small enclosure, it has additional options regarding its behavioral response to the trainer. The
aim of our study was to evaluate the influence of 2 different training strategies on the horse’s behavioral
response to human stimuli. In all, 12 female ponies were randomly divided into the following 2
groups: group A, wherein horses were trained in a small enclosure (where indicators of the level of
attention and behavioral response were used to modulate the training pace and the horse’s control over
its response to the stimuli provided by the trainer) and group B, wherein horses were trained in a closed
environment (in which the trainer’s actions left no room for any behavioral response except for the one
that was requested). Horses’ behavior toward the human subject and their heart rate during 2 standardized
behavioral tests were used to compare the responses of the 2 groups. Results indicated that the
horses in group A appeared to associate human actions with a positive experience, as highlighted by
the greater degree of explorative behavior toward human beings shown by these horses during the tests.
The experience of the horses during training may have resulted in different evaluations of the person, as
a consequence of the human’s actions during training; therefore, it seems that horses evaluate human
beings on daily relationship experiences.
|
|
|
|
Lovrovich, P., Sighieri, C., & Baragli, P. (2012). The human-given cues and behavioural plasticity of horses during a delayed three choice task. In K. Krueger (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2. International Equine Science Meeting (Vol. in press). Wald: Xenophon Publishing.
Abstract: Recent studies have tested the ability of horses to understand human gestures. But even at the moment results are rather contradictory. This study was aimed at analyzing ability of horses to understand, remember and use human-given cues in a delayed three choice task. After the training period, sixteen horses had to choose between three blue buckets. One of them hid a carrot. Eight horses (A-group) saw the person hiding the carrot and they had to choose the correct bucket only after the person had hidden carrot and gone away. Control group, eight horses (B-group) did not know where the carrot was, and could only choose the bucket through the use of smell or by random choice. Each horse carried out 10 trials in the same test session. A-group chose the correct bucket to a greater extent on the first try (4.37±1.42), compared to the second (3.00±0.53) and the third try (0.75±0.71). With significant differences between the first and the second try (t14=2.582, p=0.022), the first and the third try (t14=6.508, p=0.000), and between the second and the third try (t14=7.180, p=0.000). Also the B-group chose the correct bucket to a greater extent on the first try (3.87±0.83) compared to the second (3.37±1.51) and the third (1.75±1.49). Anyway, there was no differences between the first and the second try (t14=0.821, p=0.425). As regards the B-group, statistical differences were found between the first and the third try (t14=3.523, p=0.003) and between the second and the third try (t14=2.171, p=0.048). Moreover, A-group showed a negative correlation (r=-0.652, p=0.0409) between the number of correct answers at first trial, and seemed that they used human information during the first half of the trials. As the trials proceeded, the average time required to find carrot decreased, with a negative correlation (r=-0.779, p=0.0079) over trials while, the number of overturned bucket to find carrot increased over trials (r=0.770, p=0.0091). As the trials proceeded, the horses tended to choose at first the bucket where the carrot had been found in the previous trial (r=0.450, p=0.013). Any kind of correlation over trials was found in B-group. In the first trials, the horses we studied seemed to understand human given-cues information, store it and use it appropriately even in absence of a person. As trials proceeded they seemed to change strategy, searching carrots where it had been found in the previous trial. Therefore, horses could use human given-cues or other cognitive strategy depending on the time, energy cost and mental effort required to solve the task. KW -
|
|
