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.
|
|
Shettleworth, S. J. (2000). Cognitive ecology: field or label? Trends. Ecol. Evol, 15(4), 161.
|
P. K. McGregor,, & T. M. Peake,. (2000). Communication networks: social environments for receiving and signalling behaviour. Acta. Ethol., 2(2), 71–81.
Abstract: Communication and social behaviour are inextricably linked, with communication mediating important social behaviours such as resource defence and mate attraction. However, the social environment in which communication occurs is often ignored in discussions of communication behaviour. We argue that networks of several individuals are the common social environment for communication behaviour. The consequences for receivers and signallers of communicating in a network environment are the main subjects of this review. Eavesdropping is a receiving behaviour that is only possible in the environment of a network and therefore we concentrate on this behaviour. The main effect of communication networks on signallers is to create competition with other signallers for receiver attention. We discuss the consequences of such competition. To conclude, we explore the role of signals and signalling interactions as sources of information that animals exploit to direct their behaviour.
|
Peirce, J. W., Leigh, A. E., & Kendrick, K. M. (2000). Configurational coding, familiarity and the right hemisphere advantage for face recognition in sheep. Neuropsychologia, 38(4), 475–483.
Abstract: This study examined characteristics of visual recognition of familiar and unfamiliar faces in sheep using a 2-way discrimination task. Of particular interest were effects of lateralisation and the differential use of internal (configurational) vs external features of the stimuli. Animals were trained in a Y-maze to identify target faces from pairs, both of which were familiar (same flock as the subjects) or both of which were unfamiliar (different flock). Having been trained to identify the rewarded face a series of stimuli were presented to the sheep, designed to test for the use of each visual hemifield in the discriminations and the use of internal and external facial cues. The first experiment showed that there was a left visual hemifield (LVF) advantage in the identification of [`]hemifaces', and [`]mirrored hemifaces' and [`]chimeric' faces and that this effect was strongest with familiar faces. This represents the first evidence for visual field bias outside the primate literature. Results from the second experiment showed that, whilst both familiar and unfamiliar faces could be identified by the external features alone, only the familiar faces could be recognised by the internal features alone. Overall the results suggest separate recognition methods for socially familiar and unfamiliar faces, with the former being coded more by internal, configurational cues and showing a lateral bias to the left visual field.
|
|
de Waal, F. B., Aureli, F., & Judge, P. G. (2000). Coping with crowding. Sci Am, 282(5), 76–81.
|
Pierce, M. M., & Nall, B. T. (2000). Coupled kinetic traps in cytochrome c folding: His-heme misligation and proline isomerization. J Mol Biol, 298(5), 955–969.
Abstract: The effect of His-heme misligation on folding has been investigated for a triple mutant of yeast iso-2 cytochrome c (N26H,H33N,H39K iso-2). The variant contains a single misligating His residue at position 26, a location at which His residues are found in several cytochrome c homologues, including horse, tuna, and yeast iso-1. The amplitude for fast phase folding exhibits a strong initial pH dependence. For GdnHCl unfolded protein at an initial pH<5, the observed refolding at final pH 6 is dominated by a fast phase (tau(2f)=20 ms, alpha(2f)=90 %) that represents folding in the absence of misligation. For unfolded protein at initial pH 6, folding at final pH 6 occurs in a fast phase of reduced amplitude (alpha(2f) approximately 20 %) but the same rate (tau(2f)=20 ms), and in two slower phases (tau(m)=6-8 seconds, alpha(m) approximately 45 %; and tau(1b)=16-20 seconds, alpha(1b) approximately 35 %). Double jump experiments show that the initial pH dependence of the folding amplitudes results from a slow pH-dependent equilibrium between fast and slow folding species present in the unfolded protein. The slow equilibrium arises from coupling of the His protonation equilibrium to His-heme misligation and proline isomerization. Specifically, Pro25 is predominantly in trans in the unligated low-pH unfolded protein, but is constrained in a non-native cis isomerization state by His26-heme misligation near neutral pH. Refolding from the misligated unfolded form proceeds slowly due to the large energetic barrier required for proline isomerization and displacement of the misligated His26-heme ligand.
|
Call, J., Agnetta, B., & Tomasello, M. (2000). Cues that chimpanzees do and do not use to find hidden objects. Anim. Cogn., 3(1), 23–34.
Abstract: Chimpanzees follow conspecific and human gaze direction reliably in some situations, but very few chimpanzees reliably use gaze direction or other communicative signals to locate hidden food in the object-choice task. Three studies aimed at exploring factors that affect chimpanzee performance in this task are reported. In the first study, vocalizations and other noises facilitated the performance of some chimpanzees (only a minority). In the second study, various behavioral cues were given in which a human experimenter either touched, approached, or actually lifted and looked under the container where the food was hidden. Each of these cues led to enhanced performance for only a very few individuals. In the third study – a replication with some methodological improvements of a previous experiment – chimpanzees were confronted with two experimenters giving conflicting cues about the location of the hidden food, with one of them (the knower) having witnessed the hiding process and the other (the guesser) not. In the crucial test in which a third experimenter did the hiding, no chimpanzee found the food at above chance levels. Overall, in all three studies, by far the best performers were two individuals who had been raised in infancy by humans. It thus seems that while chimpanzees are very good at “behavior reading” of various sorts, including gaze following, they do not understand the communicative intentions (informative intentions) behind the looking and gesturing of others – with the possible exception of enculturated chimpanzees, who still do not understand the differential significance of looking and gesturing done by people who have different knowledge about states of affairs in the world.
|
B. Agnetta,, B. Hare,, & M. Tomasello,. (2000). Cues to food location that domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) of different ages do and do not use. Anim. Cogn., 3(2), 107–112.
Abstract: Autoren
B. Agnetta, B. Hare, M. Tomasello
Zusammenfassung
The results of three experiments are reported. In the main study, a human experimenter presented domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) with a variety of social cues intended to indicate the location of hidden food. The novel findings of this study were: (1) dogs were able to use successfully several totally novel cues in which they watched a human place a marker in front of the target location; (2) dogs were unable to use the marker by itself with no behavioral cues (suggesting that some form of human behavior directed to the target location was a necessary part of the cue); and (3) there were no significant developments in dogs' skills in these tasks across the age range 4 months to 4 years (arguing against the necessity of extensive learning experiences with humans). In a follow-up study, dogs did not follow human gaze into “empty space” outside of the simulated foraging context. Finally, in a small pilot study, two arctic wolves (Canis lupus) were unable to use human cues to locate hidden food. These results suggest the possibility that domestic dogs have evolved an adaptive specialization for using human-produced directional cues in a goal-directed (especially foraging) context. Exactly how they understand these cues is still an open question.
Schlüsselwörter
Key words Dogs – Arctic wolves – Social cognition – Gaze following – Communication
|
|
Sprigge, T. L. S. (2000). Darwinian Dominion: Animal Welfare and Human Interests: Lewis Petrinovich, Cambridge, Mass, London, England, MIT Press, 1999, ix + 431 pages, {pound}31.50 (hc). J. Med. Ethics, 26(5), 412–.
|
|
Olesen, I., Groen, A. F., & Gjerde, B. (2000). Definition of animal breeding goals for sustainable production systems. J. Anim Sci., 78(3), 570–582.
|
