Abstract: Recent interest has focused on the advantage of intensively handling young foals as a means of producing more tractable horses, accustomed to humans and receptive to training. To date, the effect of this intensive handling, dubbed “imprint training” in the popular literature, has not been tested. The present study compares seven foals handled intensively as neonates with eight untreated controls. The handling protocol started from 2-8 h after birth and continued daily for a total of 5 days. The protocol consisted of a series of stimuli and experiences that were each repeated until the foal no longer resisted or reacted negatively. Subsequently, foals were tested before weaning, at 4 months of age. Results indicated that handled foals (HF) ranked higher than control foals (CF) in subjective ratings of calmness (*P<0.0117) and friendliness (*P<0.0001) and in several specific handling tasks (venipuncture *P<0.0220; placing in stock *P<0.0128). Although, in approach tests all foals but one allowed approach of a person to 4 m, significantly more HF approached the person than CF (P<0.0080). In stimulus tests, foals were presented specific stimuli to which they had been tested as neonates. Two of eight CF were too unruly and dangerous to test. Of foals that could be tested, CF required significantly more time to hook-up a heart rate monitor (**P<0.0055). Split-plot analysis indicated that HF had lower heart rates to initial left-sided stimuli, presented first, than CF (*P<0.0421). In response to right-sided stimuli, heart rate scores of CF were not significantly different from HF (P<0.2259), suggesting reduced reactivity over time due to a learning effect. Behavioral responses to specific stimuli did not differ between CF and HF, suggesting that neonatal handling has a general rather than specific effect on subsequent behavior. Cortisol concentrations were measured before and after testing and the difference calculated. All foals had higher post-testing levels than pre-testing levels. There was a significant difference between HF and CF, indicating greater reactivity among the CF (*P<0.050). In general, the results indicated that foals handled as neonates were more tractable and less reactive. Specific neonatal handling tasks, such as sticking a finger up the foal's nose or patting the bottom of the foot, seemed to have no beneficial effect on related tasks such as passing a nasogastric tube or tapping with a farrier's hammer at 4 months of age. Mechanisms for the observed effect of neonatal handling require further investigation.

Abstract: An early training procedure commonly termed “foal imprint training” is widely promoted in the horse industry. However, there have been no published scientific investigations of its efficacy. This study determined the effects of a training procedure on foals and their reaction to stimuli used in the early training procedure, and to a novel stimulus, at 1, 2 and 3 months of age. Twenty-five foals received a standard training procedure at 2, 12, 24, and 48 h after birth. After the training procedure, the foals received minimal additional handling that included veterinary treatments and occasional relocation. Twenty-two foals born over the same time period served as controls. All 47 (25 trained, 22 control) foals were tested at 1 month of age. Only 20 were available for testing at 2 months of age, and nine were available at 3 months. Percentage change from baseline heart rate, time required to complete exposure to each stimulus (foals that were more reactive took longer) and the behavior of each foal during the introduction of each stimulus were recorded. Overall, the control foals tended to receive lower (better) behavioral scores at 1 and 2 months of age. Foals that underwent the training procedure tended to require less time to complete exposure to the stimulus and had lower heart rates during exposure to the stimuli at 1 and 2 months of age. By 3 months of age, there were no significant differences between trained and control foals for any measures. Early training was not efficacious in this study.

Abstract: Summary A wonderfully lucid framework for the ways to understand animal behaviour is that represented by the four [`]whys' proposed by Tinbergen (1963). For much of the past three decades, however, these four avenues have been pursued more or less in parallel. Functional questions, for example, have been addressed by behavioural ecologists, mechanistic questions by psychologists and ethologists, ontogenetic questions by developmental biologists and neuroscientists and phylogenetic questions by evolutionary biologists. More recently, the value of integration between these differing views has become apparent. In this brief review, we concentrate especially on current attempts to integrate mechanistic and functional approaches. Most of our understanding of learning and memory in animals comes from the psychological literature, which tends to use only rats or pigeons, and more occasionally primates, as subjects. The underlying psychological assumption is of general processes that are similar across species and contexts rather than a range of specific abilities. However, this does not seem to be entirely true as several learned behaviours have been described that are specific to particular species or contexts. The first conspicuous exception to the generalist assumption was the demonstration of long delay taste aversion learning in rats (Garcia et al., 1955), in which it was shown that a stimulus need not be temporally contiguous with a response for the animal to make an association between food and illness. Subsequently, a number of other examples, such as imprinting and song learning in birds (e.g., Bolhuis and Honey, 1998; Catchpole and Slater, 1995; Horn, 1998), have been thoroughly researched. Even in these cases, however, it has been typical for only a few species to be studied (domestic chicks provide the [`]model' imprinting species and canaries and zebra finches the song learning [`]models'). As a result, a great deal is understood about the neural underpinnings and development of the behaviour, but substantially less is understood about interspecific variation and whether variation in behaviour is correlated with variation in neural processing (see review by Tramontin and Brenowitz, 2000 but see ten Cate and Vos, 1999).

Abstract: When humans acquire a conditional discrimination and are given a novel-sample-comparison choice, they often reject a comparison known to be associated with a different sample and choose the alternative comparison by default (or by exclusion). In Experiment 1, we found that if, following matching training, we replaced both of the samples, acquisition took five times longer than if we replaced only one of the samples. Apparently, the opportunity to reject one of the comparisons facilitated the association of the other sample with the remaining comparison. In Experiment 2, we first trained pigeons to treat two samples differently (to associate Sample A with Comparison 1 and Sample B with Comparison 2) and then trained them to associate one of those samples with a new comparison (e.g., Sample A with Comparison 3) and to associate a novel sample (Sample C) with a different, new comparison (Comparison 4). When Sample B then replaced Sample C, the pigeons showed a significant tendency to choose Comparison 4 over Comparison 3. Thus, when given the opportunity, pigeons will choose by exclusion.

Abstract: Rats collected nuts from a container in a large arena in four experiments testing how learning about a beacon or cue at a goal interacts with learning about other spatial cues (place learning). Place learning was quick, with little evidence of competition from the beacon (Experiments 1 and 2). Rats trained to approach a beacon regardless of its location were subsequently impaired when the well-learned beacon was removed and other spatial cues identified the location of the goal (Experiment 3). The competition between beacon and place cues reflected learned irrelevance for place cues (Experiment 4). The findings differ from those of some studies of associative interactions between cue and place learning in other paradigms.