|
|
Clayton NS, & Dickinson A. (2006). Rational rats. Science, 9, 472.
|
|
|
|
Seed AM, Tebbich S, Emery NJ, & Clayton NS. (2006). Investigating physical cognition in rooks (Corvus frugilegus). Curr. Biol., 16(7), 697–701.
Abstract: Summary Although animals (particularly tool-users) are capable of solving physical tasks in the laboratory and the degree to which they understand them in terms of their underlying physical forces is a matter of contention. Here, using a new paradigm, the two-trap tube task, we report the performance of non-tool-using rooks. In contrast to the low success rates of previous studies using trap-tube problems , , and , seven out of eight rooks solved the initial task, and did so rapidly. Instead of the usual, conceptually flawed control, we used a series of novel transfer tasks to test for understanding. All seven transferred their solution across a change in stimuli. However, six out of seven were unable to transfer to two further tasks, which did not share any one visual constant. One female was able to solve these further transfer tasks. Her result is suggestive evidence that rooks are capable of sophisticated physical cognition, if not through an understanding of unobservable forces and , perhaps through rule abstraction. Our results highlight the need to investigate cognitive mechanisms other than causal understanding in studying animal physical cognition.
|
|
|
|
Saleh, N., & Chittka, L. (2006). The importance of experience in the interpretation of conspecific chemical signals. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 61(2), 215–220.
Abstract: Abstract Foraging bumblebees scent mark flowers with hydrocarbon secretions. Several studies have found these scent marks act as a repellent to bee foragers. This was thought to minimize the risk of visiting recently depleted flowers. Some studies, however, have found a reverse, attractive effect of scent marks left on flowers. Do bees mark flowers with different scents, or could the same scent be interpreted differently depending on the bees? previous experience with reward levels in flowers? We use a simple experimental design to investigate if the scent marks can become attractive when bees forage on artificial flowers that remain rewarding upon the bees? return after having depleted them. We contrast this with bees trained in the more natural scenario where revisits to recently emptied flowers are unrewarding. The bees association between scent mark and reward value was tested with flowers scent marked from the same source. We find that the bees experience with the level of reward determines how the scent mark is interpreted: the same scent can act as both an attractant and a repellent. How experience and learning influence the interpretation of the meaning of chemical signals deposited by animals for communication has rarely been investigated.
|
|
|
|
Ottoni, E., de Resende, B., & Izar, P. (2006). Erratum. Anim. Cogn., 9(2), 156.
Abstract: Without Abstract
|
|
|
|
Bekoff, M. (2006). Animal Passions And Beastly Virtues: Cognitive Ethology As The Unifying Science For Understanding The Subjective, Emotional, Empathic, And Moral Lives Of Animals. Zygon, 41, 71–104.
|
|
|
|
Cruz, H. (2006). Towards a Darwinian Approach to Mathematics. Foundations of Science, 11, 157–196.
|
|
|
|
Purpura, G. J. (2006). In Search of Human Uniqueness. Philosophical Psychology, 19, 443–461.
|
|
|
|
Kaminski, J., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Goats' behaviour in a competitive food paradigm: Evidence for perspective taking? Behaviour, 143, 1341–1356.
Abstract: Many mammalian species are highly social, creating intra-group competition for such things as food and mates. Recent research with nonhuman primates indicates that in competitive situations individuals know what other individuals can and cannot see, and they use this knowledge to their advantage in various ways. In the current study, we extended these findings to a non-primate species, the domestic goat, using the conspecific competition paradigm developed by Hare et al. (2000). Like chimpanzees and some other nonhuman primates, goats live in fission-fusion societies, form coalitions and alliances, and are known to reconcile after fights. In the current study, a dominant and a subordinate individual competed for food, but in some cases the subordinate could see things that the dominant could not. In the condition where dominants could only see one piece of food but subordinates could see both, subordinates' preferences depended on whether they received aggression from the dominant animal during the experiment. Subjects who received aggression preferred the hidden over the visible piece of food, whereas subjects who never received aggression significantly preferred the visible piece. By using this strategy, goats who had not received aggression got significantly more food than the other goats. Such complex social interactions may be supported by cognitive mechanisms similar to those of chimpanzees. We discuss these results in the context of current issues in mammalian cognition and socio-ecology.
|
|
|
|
Sickler, J., Fraser, J., Webler, T., Reiss, D., Boyle, P., Lyn, H., et al. (2006). Social Narratives Surrounding Dolphins: Q Method Study. Society and Animals, 14, 351–382.
|
|
|
|
Deecke, V. B. (2006). Studying Marine Mammal Cognition in the Wild: A Review of Four Decades of Playback Experiments. Aquatic Mammals, 32, 461–482.
|
|
