|
|
Güntürkün, O., & Kesch, S. (1987). Visual lateralization during feeding in pigeons. Behav. Neurosci., 101(3), 433–435.
Abstract: In a quasi-natural feeding situation, adult pigeons had to detect and consume 30 food grains out of about 1,000 pebbles of similar shape, size, and color within 30 s under monocular conditions. With the right eye seeing, the animals achieved a significantly higher discrimination accuracy and, consequently, a significantly higher proportion of grains grasped than with the left eye seeing. This result supports previous demonstrations of a left-hemisphere dominance for visually guided behavior in birds. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)
|
|
|
|
Clarke, J. V., Nicol, C. J., Jones, R., & McGreevy, P. D. (1996). Effects of observational learning on food selection in horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 50(2), 177–184.
Abstract: Fourteen riding horses of mixed age and breed were randomly allocated to observer and control treatments. An additional horse was pre-trained as a demonstrator to walk the 13.8 m length of the test arena and select one of two food buckets using colour and pattern cues. Observer horses were exposed to correct performances of the task by the trained demonstrator, for 20 trials held over 2 days. Control horses were subjected to the same handling and placement procedures as the observer horses but without exposure to the behaviour of the demonstrator. The third day for all subjects was designated as a test day. Each subject was released individually in a predetermined place in the arena, and the latency to walk the length of the test arena to the food buckets, the latency to feed, the identity of the bucket approached and the identity of the bucket selected were recorded on ten consecutive trials. During tests both food buckets contained food to minimize the possibility of individual trial and error learning. On the first trial the mean latency to approach the goal area was 18 s for observer horses, compared with 119 s for control horses (t = 2.8, d.f. = 12, P < 0.01) and the mean latency to eat was 35 s for observer horses, compared with 181 s for control horses (t = 4.86, d.f. = 11, P < 0.001). However, observer horses were no more likely to choose the demonstrated bucket than control horses on the first trial. Twelve of the 14 horses decreased their latency to approach the goal area during the series of ten trials, but there were no significant changes in the buckets selected.
|
|
|
|
Goodwin, D., Davidson, H. P. B., & Harris, P. (2007). A note on behaviour of stabled horses with foraging devices in mangers and buckets. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 105(1-3), 238–243.
Abstract: Processed feed for stabled horses is usually presented in buckets or mangers, and is easily and rapidly consumed. Foraging devices based on the Edinburgh foodball can be used to provide part of the ration. Current designs are all placed on the floor, raising concerns regarding ingestion of foreign materials along with the dispensed food. Alternative devices were evaluated, when presented within suitable, clean containers to prolong food-handling times but avoid such issues. In four Latin square designed replicated trials we investigated behaviour of 12 stabled horses with three foraging devices. These were separately presented for 5 min, varied in sensory complexity (round, square, polyhedral) and contained 500 g high fibre pellets. In Trials 1 and 2 six geldings were presented with devices in buckets then mangers. All individuals foraged successfully from at least one device and behaviour was compared. However, all individuals exhibited some frustration while using the devices (either pawing or biting them). Horses frequently removed the devices from the buckets in Trial 1 terminating these sessions. In Trial 2 mean device foraging duration was ranked polyhedral > round > square. Mean pawing rate in Trial 2 was calculated for horses (frequency of pawing per individual/summed duration manipulation and foraging) and was highest with square (0.11, npawers = 6). In Trial 3 six stabled mares were presented with the same foraging devices in mangers. Mean foraging duration with devices again ranked polyhedral > round > square. Mean pawing rate was highest with round device (0.08, npawers = 4). Trial 4 investigated behaviour of six horses when devices initially containing five high fibre pellets became empty. Mean foraging duration with devices ranked round > polyhedral > square. Mean pawing rate was highest with square device (0.11, npawers = 4). All horses foraged successfully from at least one foraging device in buckets and mangers. Devices met initial objectives but the unpredictability of reward suggests a source of frustration and warrants further investigation.
|
|
|
|
Hockenhull, J., & Creighton, E. (2010). Unwanted oral investigative behaviour in horses: A note on the relationship between mugging behaviour, hand-feeding titbits and clicker training. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 127(3-4), 104–107.
Abstract: Unwanted oral investigative in horses has been anecdotally attributed to the practice of hand-feeding. Fears over such behaviour developing as a consequence of using food rewards, for example in clicker training, have been implicated as a common reason for not employing food-based positive reinforcement training techniques. This study used data generated as part of a larger research project, and explored associations between five common oral investigative behaviours and the practices of hand-feeding and clicker training. Data were from a convenience sample of UK leisure horse owners using two self-administered Internet surveys. Ninety-one percent of respondents reported giving their horse food by hand and this practice was significantly associated with three of the five oral investigative behaviours, licking hands (P = 0.006), gently searching clothing (P < 0.001) and roughly searching clothing (P = 0.003). Nipping hands and biting clothes were not associated with hand-feeding, suggesting that risk factors for these behaviours originate outside of this practice. Clicker training techniques were employed by 14% of respondents and their use was not associated with the incidence of any of the five oral investigative behaviours. These findings suggest that horse owners should not be deterred from using food-based positive reinforcement techniques with their horses, as fears that this practice will result in unwanted oral investigative behaviours from their horses appear unfounded.
|
|
|
|
La Riviere, J. W. (1969). Ecology of yeasts in the kefir grain. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek, 35, Suppl:D15–6.
|
|
|
|
Shettleworth, S. J. (1985). Foraging, memory, and constraints on learning. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 443, 216–226.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Ward, C., & Smuts, B. B. (2007). Quantity-based judgments in the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris). Anim. Cogn., 10(1), 71–80.
Abstract: We examined the ability of domestic dogs to choose the larger versus smaller quantity of food in two experiments. In experiment 1, we investigated the ability of 29 dogs (results from 18 dogs were used in the data analysis) to discriminate between two quantities of food presented in eight different combinations. Choices were simultaneously presented and visually available at the time of choice. Overall, subjects chose the larger quantity more often than the smaller quantity, but they found numerically close comparisons more difficult. In experiment 2, we tested two dogs from experiment 1 under three conditions. In condition 1, we used similar methods from experiment 1 and tested the dogs multiple times on the eight combinations from experiment 1 plus one additional combination. In conditions 2 and 3, the food was visually unavailable to the subjects at the time of choice, but in condition 2, food choices were viewed simultaneously before being made visually unavailable, and in condition 3, they were viewed successively. In these last two conditions, and especially in condition 3, the dogs had to keep track of quantities mentally in order to choose optimally. Subjects still chose the larger quantity more often than the smaller quantity when the food was not simultaneously visible at the time of choice. Olfactory cues and inadvertent cuing by the experimenter were excluded as mechanisms for choosing larger quantities. The results suggest that, like apes tested on similar tasks, some dogs can form internal representations and make mental comparisons of quantity.
|
|
|
|
Palleroni, A., Hauser, M., & Marler, P. (2005). Do responses of galliform birds vary adaptively with predator size? Anim. Cogn., 8(3), 200–210.
Abstract: Past studies of galliform anti-predator behavior show that they discriminate between aerial and ground predators, producing distinctive, functionally referential vocalizations to each class. Within the category of aerial predators, however, studies using overhead models, video images and observations of natural encounters with birds of prey report little evidence that galliforms discriminate between different raptor species. This pattern suggests that the aerial alarm response may be triggered by general features of objects moving in the air. To test whether these birds are also sensitive to more detailed differences between raptor species, adult chickens with young were presented with variously sized trained raptors (small, intermediate, large) under controlled conditions. In response to the small hawk, there was a decline in anti-predator aggression and in aerial alarm calling as the young grew older and less vulnerable to attack by a hawk of this size. During the same developmental period, responses to the largest hawk, which posed the smallest threat to the young at all stages, did not change; there were intermediate changes at this time in response to the middle-sized hawk. Thus the anti-predator behavior of the adult birds varied in an adaptive fashion, changing as a function of both chick age and risk. We discuss these results in light of current issues concerning the cognitive mechanisms underlying alarm calling behavior in animals.
|
|
|
|
Jackson, R. R., & Li, D. (2004). One-encounter search-image formation by araneophagic spiders. Anim. Cogn., 7(4), 247–254.
Abstract: An experimental study of search-image use by araneophagic jumping spiders (i.e., salticid spiders that prey routinely on other spiders) supports five conclusions. First, araneophagic salticids have an innate predisposition to form search images for specific prey from their preferred prey category (spiders) rather than for prey from a non-preferred category (insects). Second, single encounters are sufficient for forming search images. Third, search images are based on selective attention specifically to optical cues. Fourth, there are trade-offs in attention during search-image use (i.e., forming a search image for one type of spider diminishes the araneophagic salticid's attention to other spiders). Fifth, the araneophagic salticid's adoption of search images is costly to the prey (i.e., when the araneophagic salticid adopts a search, the prey's prospects for surviving encounters with the araneophagic salticid are diminished). Cognitive and ecological implications of search-image use are discussed.
|
|
