|
Nelson, W. A., Keirans, J. E., Bell, J. F., & Clifford, C. M. (1975). Host-ectoparasite relationships. J Med Entomol, 12(2), 143–166.
|
|
Mirzaeva, A. G. (1974). [Age makeup of female Culicoides sinanoensis Tok. in the coniferous-broad-leaved forest zone of the southern Maritime Territory]. Parazitologiia, 8(6), 524–530.
|
|
Malek, E. A. (1971). The life cycle of Gastrodiscus aegyptiacus (Cobbold, 1876) Looss, 1896 (Trematoda: Paramphistomatidae: Gastrodiscinae). J Parasitol, 57(5), 975–979.
|
|
Joubert, L., Oudar, J., Hannoun, C., Beytout, D., Corniou, B., Guillon, J. C., et al. (1970). [Epidemiology of the West Nile virus: study of a focus in Camargue. IV. Meningo-encephalomyelitis of the horse]. Ann Inst Pasteur (Paris), 118(2), 239–247.
|
|
Nelson, G. S. (1970). Onchocerciasis. Adv Parasitol, 8, 173–224.
|
|
Boray, J. C. (1969). Experimental fascioliasis in Australia. Adv Parasitol, 7, 95–210.
|
Washburn, D. A., Smith, J. D., & Shields, W. E. (2006). Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) immediately generalize the uncertain response. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 32(2), 185–189.
Abstract: Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) have learned, like humans, to use an uncertain response adaptively under test conditions that create uncertainty, suggesting a metacognitive process by which human and nonhuman primates may monitor their confidence and alter their behavior accordingly. In this study, 4 rhesus monkeys generalized their use of the uncertain response, without additional training, to 2 familiar tasks (2-choice discrimination learning and mirror-image matching to sample) that predictably and demonstrably produce uncertainty. The monkeys were significantly less likely to use the uncertain response on trials in which the answer might be known. These results indicate that monkeys, like humans, know when they do not know and that they can learn to use a symbol as a generalized means for indicating their uncertainty.
|
Cerutti, D. T., & Staddon, J. E. R. (2004). Immediacy versus anticipated delay in the time-left experiment: a test of the cognitive hypothesis. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 30(1), 45–57.
Abstract: In the time-left experiment (J. Gibbon & R. M. Church, 1981), animals are said to compare an expectation of a fixed delay to food, for one choice, with a decreasing delay expectation for the other, mentally representing both upcoming time to food and the difference between current time and upcoming time (the cognitive hypothesis). The results of 2 experiments support a simpler view: that animals choose according to the immediacies of reinforcement for each response at a time signaled by available time markers (the temporal control hypothesis). It is not necessary to assume that animals can either represent or subtract representations of times to food to explain the results of the time-left experiment.
|
Nakamura, K. (2001). Perseverative errors in object discrimination learning by aged Japanese monkeys (Macaca fuscata). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 27(4), 345–353.
Abstract: To examine the nature of age-dependent cognitive decline, performance in terms of concurrent object discriminations was assessed in aged and nonaged Japanese monkeys (Macaca fuscata). Aged monkeys required more sessions and committed more errors than nonaged ones in the discriminations, even in simple object discriminations. Analyses of errors suggest that aged monkeys repeated the same errors and committed more errors when they chose a negative object at the 1st trial. A hypothesis analysis of behavior suggests that their incorrect choices were mainly due to object preference. Therefore, the impairment was probably caused by a failure to inhibit inappropriate responses. Together with previous neuropsychological findings, deficits of aged monkeys in the performance of object discriminations can be explained by dysfunction of the frontal cortex.
|
Church, R. M. (1997). Quantitative models of animal learning and cognition. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 23(4), 379–389.
Abstract: This article reviews the prerequisites for quantitative models of animal learning and cognition, describes the types of models, provides a rationale for the development of such quantitative models, describes criteria for their evaluation, and makes recommendations for the next generation of quantitative models. A modular approach to the development of models is described in which a procedure is considered as a generator of stimuli and a model is considered as a generator of responses. The goal is to develop models that, in combination with many different procedures, produce sequences of times of occurrence of events (stimuli and responses) that are indistinguishable from those produced by the animal under many experimental procedures and data analysis techniques.
|
