Abstract: Numerous previous investigators have explained species differences in spatial memory performance in terms of differences in foraging ecology. In three experiments we attempted to extend these findings by examining the extent to which the spatial memory performance of echidnas (or “spiny anteaters”) can be understood in terms of the spatio-temporal distribution of their prey (ants and termites). This is a species and a foraging situation that have not been examined in this way before. Echidnas were better able to learn to avoid a previously rewarding location (to “win-shift”) than to learn to return to a previously rewarding location (to “win-stay”), at short retention intervals, but were unable to learn either of these strategies at retention intervals of 90 min. The short retention interval results support the ecological hypothesis, but the long retention interval results do not.

Abstract: It is often assumed that there is more than one kind of learning--or more than one memory system--each of which is specialized for a different function. Yet, the criteria by which the varieties of learning and memory should be distinguished are seldom clear. Learning and memory phenomena can differ from one another across species or situations (and thus be specialized) in a number of different ways. What is needed is a consistent theoretical approach to the whole range of learning phenomena, and one is explored here. Parallels and contrasts in the study of sensory systems illustrate one way to integrate the study of general mechanisms with an appreciation of species-specific adaptations.

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.

Abstract: In recent years there has been a marked increase in awareness of issues involving the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates (NHPs) used in biomedical research. As a result, many facilities are starting to train primates to voluntarily cooperate with veterinary, husbandry, and research procedures, such as remaining still for blood draws or injections. Such training generally reduces the stress associated with these procedures, resulting in calmer animals and, ultimately, better research models. However, such training requires great investments in time, and there can be vast individual differences in training success. Some animals learn tasks quickly, while others make slower progress in training. In this study, we examined whether temperament, as measured by response to a novel food object, correlated with the amount of time it took to train 20 adult female rhesus macaques to perform a simple task. The monkeys were categorized as “exploratory” (i.e., inspected a novel object placed in the home cage within 10 sec), “moderate” (i.e., inspected the object within 10-180 sec), or “inhibited” (i.e., did not inspect the object within 3 min). We utilized positive reinforcement techniques to train the monkeys to touch a target (PVC pipe shaped like an elbow) hung on their cage. Temperament correlated with training success in this study (Pearson chi2=7.22, df=2, P=0.03). We easily trained over 75% of the animals that inspected the novel food (i.e., exploratory or moderate individuals) to touch the target. However, only 22% of the inhibited monkeys performed the task. By knowing which animals may not respond to conventional training methods, we may be able to develop alternate training techniques to address their specific needs. In addition, these results will allow us to screen monkeys to be assigned to research projects in which they will be trained, with the goal of obtaining the best candidates for those studies.