Abstract: Examples of how animals learn when multiple, sometimes redundant, cues are present provide further examples not considered by Hutchinson and Gigerenzer that seem to fit the principle of taking the best. “The best” may the most valid cue in the present circumstances; evolution may also produce species-specific biases to use the most functionally relevant cues.

Abstract: This article reviews some of the research on attentional processes in animals. In the traditional approach to selective attention, it is proposed that in addition to specific response attachments, animals also learn something about the dimension along which the stimuli fall (e.g., hue, brightness, or line orientation). More recently, there has been an attempt to find animal analogs to methodologies originally applied to research with humans. One line of research has been directed to the question of whether animals can locate a target among distracters faster if they are prepared for the presentation of the target (search image and priming). In the study of search image, the target is typically a food item and the cue consists of previous trials on which the same target is presented. In research on priming effects, the cue is typically different from the target but is a good predictor of its occurrence. The study of preattentive processes shows that perceptually, certain stimuli stand out from distracters better than others, depending not only on characteristics of the target relative to the distracters, but also on relations among the distracters. Research on divided attention is examined with the goal of determining whether an animal can process two elements of a compound sample with the same efficiency as one. Taken together, the reviewed research indicates that animals are capable of centrally (not just peripherally) attending to selective aspects of a stimulus display.

Abstract: Although animals typically prefer to exert less effort rather than more effort to obtain food, the present research shows that requiring greater effort to obtain food at a particular location appears to increase the value of that location. In Experiment 1, pigeons' initial preference for one feeder was significantly reduced by requiring 1 peck to obtain food from that feeder and requiring 30 pecks to obtain food from the other feeder. In Experiment 2, a similar decrease in preference was not found when pigeons received reinforcement from both feeders independently of the amount of effort required. These results are consistent with the within-trial contrast effect proposed by in which the relative hedonic value of a reward depends on the state of the animal immediately prior to the reward. The greater the improvement from that prior state the greater the value of the reinforcer.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARgamma) ligands improve human hypertension. However, the mechanism and site of this effect remains unknown, confounded by PPARgamma expression in many cell types, including endothelial cells (ECs). METHODS: To evaluate the vascular role of PPARgamma we used a conditional null mouse model. Specific disruption of PPARgamma in ECs was created by crossing Tie2-Cre+ transgenic (T2T+) and PPARgamma-floxed (fl/fl) mice to generate PPARgamma (fl/fl)T2T+ (PPARgamma E-null) mice. Conscious 8- to 12-week-old congenic PPARgamma (fl/fl)Cre- (wild type) and PPARgamma E-null mice were examined for changes in systolic blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR), untreated, after 2 months of salt-loading (drinking water), and after treatment for 3 months with high fat (HF) diet alone or supplemented during the last 2 weeks with rosiglitazone (3 mg/kg/d). RESULTS: Untreated PPARgamma E-nulls were phenotypically indistinguishable from wild-type littermates. However, compared to similarly treated wild types, HF-treated PPARgamma E-nulls had significantly elevated systolic BP not seen after normal diet or salt-loading. Despite sex-dependent baseline differences, salt-loaded and HF-treated PPARgamma E-nulls of either sex had significantly elevated HR versus wild types. Interestingly, rosiglitazone improved serum insulin levels, but not HF diet-induced hypertension, in PPARgamma E-null mice. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that PPARgamma in ECs not only is an important regulator of hypertension and HR under stressed conditions mimicking those arising in type 2 diabetics, but also mediates the antihypertensive effects of rosiglitazone. These data add evidence supporting a beneficial role for PPARgamma-specific ligands in the treatment of hypertension, and suggest therapeutic strategies targeting ECs may prove useful.

Abstract: For 30 years Gallup's (Science 167:86-87, 1970) mark test, which consists of confronting a mirror-experienced test animal with its own previously altered mirror image, usually a color mark on forehead, eyebrow or ear, has delivered valuable results about the distribution of visual self-recognition in non-human primates. Chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans and, less frequently, gorillas can learn to correctly understand the reflection of their body in a mirror. However, the standard version of the mark test is good only for positively proving the existence of self-recognition. Conclusive statements about the lack of self-recognition are more difficult because of the methodological constraints of the test. This situation has led to a persistent controversy about the power of Gallup's original technique. We devised a new variant of the test which permits more unequivocal decisions about both the presence and absence of self-recognition. This new procedure was tested with marmoset monkeys (Callithrix jacchus), following extensive training with mirror-related tasks to facilitate performance in the standard mark test. The results show that a slightly altered mark test with a new marking substance (chocolate cream) can help to reliably discriminate between true negative results, indicating a real lack of ability to recognize oneself in a mirror, from false negative results that are due to methodological particularities of the standard test. Finally, an evolutionary hypothesis is put forward as to why many primates can use a mirror instrumentally – i.e. know how to use it for grasping at hidden objects – while failing in the decisive mark test.