Abstract: S. T. Boysen and G. G. Berntson (1995) found that chimpanzees performed poorly on a reversed contingency task in which they had to point to the smaller of 2 food quantities to acquire the larger quantity. The authors compared the performance of 4 great ape species (Pan troglodytes, Pongo pygmaeus, Pan paniscus, and Gorilla gorilla) on the reversed contingency task while manipulating food quantity (0-4 or 1-4) and food visibility (visible pairs or covered pairs). Results showed no systematic species differences but large individual differences. Some individuals of each species were able to solve the reversed contingency task. Both quantity and visibility of the food items had a significant effect on performance. Subjects performed better when the disparity between quantities was smaller and the quantities were not directly visible.

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: The maze learning ability of six pony foals that had been weaned at birth was compared to that of six foals reared normally. The foals' learning ability was also compared to their mothers' learning ability at the same task; the correct turn in a single choice point maze. The maze learning test was conducted when the foals were 6 to 8 mo old and after the mothered foals had been weaned. There was no significant difference between the ability of orphaned (weaned at birth) and mothered foals in their ability to learn to turn left (6 +/- .7 and 5.1 +/- .1 trials, respectively) or to learn the reversal, to turn right (6.7 +/- .6 and 6.2 +/- .6 trials, respectively). The orphan foals spent significantly more time in the maze in their first exposure to it than the mothered foals (184 +/- 42 vs 55 +/- 15 s. Mann Whitney U = 7, P less than .05). The mothers of the foals (n = 11) learned to turn left as rapidly as the foals (5.9 +/- .7 trials), but they were slower to learn to turn right (9.8 +/- 1.4 vs 6.4 +/- .4 trials, Mann Whitney U = 33, P less than .05), indicating that the younger horses learned more rapidly. There was no correlation between the trials to criteria of the mare and those of her foal, but there was a significant negative correlation between rank in trials to criteria and age (r = -65, P less than .05) when data from the mare and foal trials were combined. The dominance hierarchy of the mares was determined using a paired feeding test in which two horses competed for one bucket of feed. Although there was no correlation between rank in the hierarchy and maze learning ability, there was a correlation between body weight and rank in the hierarchy (r = .7, P less than .05). This may indicate either that heavier horses are likely to be dominant or that horses high in dominance gain more weight. Maternal deprivation did not appear to seriously retard learning of a simple maze by foals, although the orphans moved more slowly initially. The lack of maternal influence on learning is also reflected in the lack of correlation between the mare's learning ability and that of her foal. Young horses appear to learn more rapidly than older horses.

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.

Abstract: There has been relatively little research on the psychological mechanisms of social learning. This may be due, in part, to the practice of distinguishing categories of social learning in relation to ill-defined mechanisms (Davis, 1973; Galef, 1988). This practice both makes it difficult to identify empirically examples of different types of social learning, and gives the false impression that the mechanisms responsible for social learning are clearly understood. It has been proposed that social learning phenomena be subsumed within the categorization scheme currently used by investigators of asocial learning. This scheme distinguishes categories of learning according to observable conditions, namely, the type of experience that gives rise to a change in an animal (single stimulus vs. stimulus-stimulus relationship vs. response-reinforcer relationship), and the type of behaviour in which this change is detected (response evocation vs. learnability) (Rescorla, 1988). Specifically, three alignments have been proposed: (i) stimulus enhancement with single stimulus learning, (ii) observational conditioning with stimulus-stimulus learning, or Pavlovian conditioning, and (iii) observational learning with response-reinforcer learning, or instrumental conditioning. If, as the proposed alignments suggest, the conditions of social and asocial learning are the same, there is some reason to believe that the mechanisms underlying the two sets of phenomena are also the same. This is so if one makes the relatively uncontroversial assumption that phenomena which occur under similar conditions tend to be controlled by similar mechanisms. However, the proposed alignments are intended to be a set of hypotheses, rather than conclusions, about the mechanisms of social learning; as a basis for further research in which animal learning theory is applied to social learning. A concerted attempt to apply animal learning theory to social learning, to find out whether the same mechanisms are responsible for social and asocial learning, could lead both to refinements of the general theory, and to a better understanding of the mechanisms of social learning. There are precedents for these positive developments in research applying animal learning theory to food aversion learning (e.g. Domjan, 1983; Rozin & Schull, 1988) and imprinting (e.g. Bolhuis, de Vox & Kruit, 1990; Hollis, ten Cate & Bateson, 1991). Like social learning, these phenomena almost certainly play distinctive roles in the antogeny of adaptive behaviour, and they are customarily regarded as 'special kinds' of learning (Shettleworth, 1993).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)