Abstract: The way in which cognitive functioning is affected by stressors is an important area of research for applied ethologists because stress caused by captive conditions may disrupt cognitive processes and lead to welfare and husbandry problems. Such problems may be minimised through an understanding of the links between stress and cognition. The effects of stress on cognitive function have been studied in disciplines ranging from human perceptual psychology to animal neuroscience. The aim of this paper is to provide an introduction to this research, focusing on the effects of stressors on attention, memory formation and memory recall. Findings from such a diverse literature with little apparent inter-disciplinary communication are inevitably complex and often contradictory. Nevertheless, some generalities do emerge. The idea that an inverted U-shaped relationship exists between an individual's state of stress or arousal and its ability to perform a cognitive task effectively, the so-called Yerkes-Dodson law, is commonly encountered. The law has limited explanatory value because it is unlikely that different stressors act on cognitive function via the same intervening, non-specific state. Furthermore, the law only provides a very general description of the relationship between stress and cognitive function. Empirical research on attention and memory processes reveals more specific findings. Stressors appear to cause shifts, lapses and narrowing of attention, and can also influence decision speed. These processes may be viewed as serving an adaptive role helping the animal to search for and scrutinise a source of danger. There is conflicting evidence as to whether hormones involved in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal stress response play a part in these processes. These hormones and those involved in the sympathetic-adrenomedullary stress response do appear to play an important role in memory formation. Low or moderate concentrations of circulating glucocorticoids and catecholamines can enhance memory formation, while excessively high or prolonged elevations of these hormones can lead to memory disruption. The effects of stressors on memory recall are less clear. There is evidence for disruptive effects, and for facilitatory effects indicating state-dependent memory recall; events experienced under conditions of high arousal may be best recalled under similar conditions. Applied ethologists have the opportunity to extend work in this area, which often involves studies of single stressors/stress hormones acting in isolation and limited measures of cognitive function, by focusing on real-life husbandry stressors encountered by captive animals. This will yield fundamental information which also has direct relevance to animal welfare and management issues.

Abstract: It is now well established that domestic animals construct responses to their environment that depend on experience and on integration of several features of the environment, including social partners. This ability to be aware of the environment is not fully developed at birth but improves and varies through the animal's life. This topic is discussed on the basis of social processes in sheep and cattle. Social relationships of an animal with its conspecifics develop with age; they do not merely depend on pre-programmed behaviours but rely at least in part on learning of characteristics of the partners. Soon after birth, a strong preferential bond establishes with the dam then to a lesser extent, the young associates to other members of the flock, especially other young. The attractiveness of the group varies later in life due to external events or to physiological state: the abrupt separation from the dam at artificial weaning strengthens bonds between peers, whereas around parturition, females are less disturbed by isolation from the group. More recently, the awareness of social partners has been described in non-social contexts: the animal modifies its responses to events according to the presence of partners, and also to their emotional state and behaviour. The effects of partners seem to depend on their relationship with the animal and also on the social motivation of that animal, which both vary during its life. We recommend study of the ontogeny of awareness using the model of social influences.

Abstract: Herding behavior in ungulates is executed mainly by males. There are several forms of herding: guarding a single estrous female; rounding up a bunch of females during the rutting season; territorial herding by which a male keeps females inside his territory; herding of a moving, permanent, harem group; social herding in which group members of both sexes are herded by one dominant male. When put into this sequence, a phenotypical trend is illustrated, leading from an intimate connection of herding with mating behavior toward an increasing independence from sexual behavior and culminating in a complete socialization of herding. Aspects and problems of herding behavior are the recognition of, and the animal's respect for, partners in gregarious species; the animal “taking offense” at activities of others which deviate from its own activity; the active coordination and synchronization of group activities; the use of, and the effects of, threat, dominance and courtship displays in herding; the possibility of substitution among expressive displays in relation to partners of different sex; the communicative function of the animal's orientation relative to the partner; social hierarchy and leadership in a group; the possibility of interspecific herding, particularly in man-animal relationships, which is closely linked to the process of domestication.

Abstract: German shepherd pups from untrained bitches and bitches trained in the location of narcotics were either separated from their mothers at 6 weeks (standard raised) or at 3 months of age (extended maternal care). Pups with extended maternal care which were allowed to observe their trained mothers locating and retrieving a sachet of odour-producing narcotic between the ages of 6 and 12 weeks performed the same task significantly better than non-exposed pups when tested at the age of 6 months, without further reinforcement during the interim period. This difference in performance was independent of the duration of maternal care or maternal origin of the pups and was attributed to differences in early experience acquired through observational learning.

Abstract: Four experiments were designed to find evidence of observational learning in cattle. The experiments were run on ten experimental heifers, each observing a demonstrator mate performing a task, and on ten control heifers, each observing a non-demonstrator mate. The mates and observers were separated by wire netting in Experiments 1-3, but were in the same room in Experiment 4. The task to be learned was to push a panel to get food into a box. All naive animals were able to observe while their mate performed the task. The observers in Experiments 1 and 4 were Salers heifers that had no prior experience of the testing room; those in Experiment 2 were Salers heifers that were accustomed to the room; those in Experiment 3 were Aubrac or Limousin heifers that had already eaten in the room.
The behaviour of the observers was influenced by their mates: activity at or near the boxes was enhanced by the presence of demonstrators in Experiment 2 (box contacts: 38.0 +/- 16.2 vs. 22.1 +/- 11.9 for experimental and control heifers, respectively; P<0.05), while activity in other parts of the room in Experiment 3 was enhanced when non-demonstrator mates were present (wall sniffing: 5.4 +/- 13.9 vs. 13.9 +/- 13.7; P<0.05). Overall, 26 experimental heifers vs. 19 controls learned the task (P>0.05). The time spent eating was longer when the observer only had visual contact with a demonstrator (Experiment 1: 15.9 +/- 1.6 vs. 11.6 +/- 1.8 min), but was lower when physical contacts with the demonstrator were possible (Experiment 4: 4.6 +/- 8.8 vs. 5.4 +/- 2.2 min; P<0.05).
Ten out of the 11 Limousin heifers learned the task, compared with only three out of the nine Aubrac heifers (P<0.05). The latter spent more time near the door and sniffed the walls more often than the former (2.0 +/- 1.9 vs. 0.4 +/- 0.6 min, P<0.05, and 18.1 +/- 13.4 vs. 2.7 +/- 6.5 min, P<0.01), as though they were trying to flee the situation.
When animals observed a demonstrator, their attention was drawn to stimuli involved in the task but acquisition of knowledge was not greatly improved.