|
|
Foster, T. M., Matthews, L. R., Temple, W., & Poling, A. (1997). Concurrent schedule performance in domestic goats: persistent undermatching. Behav. Process., 40(3), 231–237.
Abstract: Performance of nine domestic goats responding under concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules of food delivery was examined, with results analyzed in terms of the generalized matching equation. Substantial undermatching of response and time allocation ratios to obtained reinforcement ratios was evident. Post-reinforcement pause time ratios approximately matched obtained reinforcement ratios. Subtracting these times from total time allocation values yielded net time allocation ratios, which undermatched obtained reinforcement ratios to a greater degree than whole-session time allocation ratios. Slopes of regression lines relating behavioral outputs to environmental inputs characteristically were below 0.6, which is similar to previous findings in dairy cows tested under comparable conditions.
|
|
|
|
MacLean, E., Matthews, L., Hare, B., Nunn, C., Anderson, R., Aureli, F., et al. (2012). How does cognition evolve? Phylogenetic comparative psychology. Anim. Cogn., 15(2), 223–238.
Abstract: Now more than ever animal studies have the potential to test hypotheses regarding how cognition evolves. Comparative psychologists have developed new techniques to probe the cognitive mechanisms underlying animal behavior, and they have become increasingly skillful at adapting methodologies to test multiple species. Meanwhile, evolutionary biologists have generated quantitative approaches to investigate the phylogenetic distribution and function of phenotypic traits, including cognition. In particular, phylogenetic methods can quantitatively (1) test whether specific cognitive abilities are correlated with life history (e.g., lifespan), morphology (e.g., brain size), or socio-ecological variables (e.g., social system), (2) measure how strongly phylogenetic relatedness predicts the distribution of cognitive skills across species, and (3) estimate the ancestral state of a given cognitive trait using measures of cognitive performance from extant species. Phylogenetic methods can also be used to guide the selection of species comparisons that offer the strongest tests of a priori predictions of cognitive evolutionary hypotheses (i.e., phylogenetic targeting). Here, we explain how an integration of comparative psychology and evolutionary biology will answer a host of questions regarding the phylogenetic distribution and history of cognitive traits, as well as the evolutionary processes that drove their evolution.
|
|
