|
|
de Waal, F. B., Aureli, F., & Judge, P. G. (2000). Coping with crowding. Sci Am, 282(5), 76–81.
|
|
|
|
Silanikove, N. (2000). The physiological basis of adaptation in goats to harsh environments. Small Rum Res, 35.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Zentall, T. R., & Riley, D. A. (2000). Selective attention in animal discrimination learning. J Gen Psychol, 127(1), 45–66.
Abstract: The traditional approach to the study of selective attention in animal discrimination learning has been to ask if animals are capable of the central selective processing of stimuli, such that certain aspects of the discriminative stimuli are partially or wholly ignored while their relationships to each other, or other relevant stimuli, are processed. A notable characteristic of this research has been that procedures involve the acquisition of discriminations, and the issue of concern is whether learning is selectively determined by the stimulus dimension defined by the discriminative stimuli. Although there is support for this kind of selective attention, in many cases, simpler nonattentional accounts are sufficient to explain the results. An alternative approach involves procedures more similar to those used in human information-processing research. When selective attention is studied in humans, it generally involves the steady state performance of tasks for which there is limited time allowed for stimulus input and a relatively large amount of relevant information to be processed; thus, attention must be selective or divided. When this approach is applied to animals and alternative accounts have been ruled out, stronger evidence for selective or divided attention in animals has been found. Similar processes are thought to be involved when animals search more natural environments for targets. Finally, an attempt is made to distinguish these top-down attentional processes from more automatic preattentional processes that have been studied in humans and other animals.
|
|
|
|
Buchner, H. H. F., Obermuller, S., & Scheidl, M. (2000). Body Centre of Mass Movement in the Sound Horse. The Veterinary Journal, 160(3), 225–234.
Abstract: The body centre of mass (BCM) is a key factor in the analysis of equine locomotion, as its position and movement determines the distribution and magnitude of loads on the limbs. In this study, the three-dimensional (3D) movement of the BCM in walking and trotting horses was assessed using a kinematic, segmental method. Thirty markers representing 20 body segments were recorded in 12 sound horses while standing, walking and trotting on a treadmill using a high-speed video system. Based on segmental inertial data, 3D positions of the segmental centres of mass as well as the total BCM were calculated. The position within the trunk during square standing and the movements of the BCM were determined for the three planes. The position of the BCM in the standing horse is presented relative to external reference points. At the trot, vertical displacement amplitude of the BCM amounted to 53 (6) mm as mean (sd), which was 27% smaller than external trunk movement. Medio-lateral displacement amplitude of the BCM was 19 (4) mm, 34% less than trunk amplitude. Sagittal forward-backward oscillations of the BCM independent from general forward movement were 13 (3) mm, being 24% less than trunk movements. At the walk, vertical, medio-lateral and sagittal BCM movements were smaller than trunk movements by 43, 65 and 65% respectively. The results show reduced and efficient BCM movements compared to the trunk and form a basis for the assessment of various clinical conditions such as lameness, the influence of a rider and various dressage performances.
|
|
|
|
Kirkwood, J. K. (2000). Animal minds and animal welfare. Vet. Rec., 146(11), 327.
|
|
|
|
Byrne R.W. (2000). - Animal Cognition in Nature, edited by Russell P. Balda, Irene M. Pepperberg and Alan C. Kamil. Trends. Cognit. Sci., 4, 73.
|
|
|
|
Shettleworth, S. J. (2000). Cognitive ecology: field or label? Trends. Ecol. Evol, 15(4), 161.
|
|
|
|
Healy, S., & Braithwaite, V. (2000). Cognitive ecology: a field of substance? Trends. Ecol. Evol, 15(1), 22–26.
Abstract: In 1993, Les Real invented the label 'cognitive ecology'. This label was intended for work that brought cognitive science and behavioural ecology together. Real's article stressed the importance of such an approach to the understanding of behaviour. At the end of a decade in which more interdisciplinary work on behaviour has been seen than for many years, it is time to assess whether cognitive ecology is a label describing an active field.
|
|
|
|
Aureli, F., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2000). Natural conflict resolution. Berkley.
Abstract: Introduction FILIPPO AURELI & FRANS B. M. DE WAAL Menzel, C. R. 1993. van Schaik, C. P., & van Noordwijk, M. A. 1986. Communication by agonistic displays: What can games theory contribute to ethology? Chapais, B. 1995. Alliances as a means of competition in primates: Evolutionary, developmental, and cognitive aspects. Punishment in animal societies. Nature, 373: 209-216.
|
|
