| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> [11–20] |
|
| Records | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Cantlon, J.F.; Brannon, E.M. | ||||
| Title | How Much Does Number Matter to a Monkey (Macaca mulatta)? | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 2007 | Publication | Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes | Abbreviated Journal  |
|
| Volume | 33 | Issue | 1 | Pages | 32-41 |
| Keywords | numerical cognition; Weber's law; nonhuman primates; numerosity | ||||
| Abstract | Although many animal species can represent numerical values, little is known about how salient number is relative to other object properties for nonhuman animals. In one hypothesis, researchers propose that animals represent number only as a last resort, when no other properties differentiate stimuli. An alternative hypothesis is that animals automatically, spontaneously, and routinely represent the numerical attributes of their environments. The authors compared the influence of number versus that of shape, color, and surface area on rhesus monkeys' (Macaca mulatta) decisions by testing them on a matching task with more than one correct answer: a numerical match and a nonnumerical (color, surface area, or shape) match. The authors also tested whether previous laboratory experience with numerical discrimination influenced a monkey's propensity to represent number. Contrary to the last-resort hypothesis, all monkeys based their decisions on numerical value when the numerical ratio was favorable. | ||||
| Address | |||||
| Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
| Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
| Language | Summary Language | Original Title | |||
| Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
| Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
| ISSN | ISBN | Medium | |||
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | Approved | no | |||
| Call Number | Equine Behaviour @ team @ | Serial | 2891 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Gray, E.R.; Spetch, M.L. | ||||
| Title | Pigeons Encode Absolute Distance but Relational Direction From Landmarks and Walls | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 2006 | Publication | Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes | Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume | 32 | Issue | 4 | Pages | 474-480 |
| Keywords | spatial cognition; absolute distance; relational direction; landmark configurations | ||||
| Abstract | In recent studies, researchers have examined animals' use of absolute or relational distances in finding a hidden goal. When trained with an array of landmarks, most animals use the default strategy of searching at an absolute distance from 1 or more landmarks. In contrast, when trained in enclosures, animals often use the relationship among walls. In the present study, pigeons were trained to find the center of an array of landmarks or a set of short walls that did not block external cues. Expansion tests showed that both groups of pigeons primarily used an absolute distance strategy. However, on rotational tests, pigeons continued to search in the center of the array, suggesting that direction was learned in relation to array. | ||||
| Address | |||||
| Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
| Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
| Language | Summary Language | Original Title | |||
| Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
| Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
| ISSN | ISBN | Medium | |||
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | Approved | no | |||
| Call Number | Equine Behaviour @ team @ | Serial | 2894 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Beck, B.B. | ||||
| Title | Chimpocentrism: Bias in cognitive ethology | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 1982 | Publication | Journal of Human Evolution | Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume | 11 | Issue | 1 | Pages | 3-17 |
| Keywords | herring gull; chimpanzee; cognition; tool-use; shell-dropping; mollusk; predation | ||||
| Abstract | Herring gulls drop hard-shelled mollusks and hermit crab-inhabited molluskan prey in order to break the shells and gain access to the edible interior. A field study of predatory shell dropping on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, U.S.A. showed that the gulls usually drop the same shell repeatedly, orient directly to dropping sites that are invisible from the point at which the mollusks are captured, drop preferentially on hard surfaces, adjust dropping heights to suit the area and elasticity of the substrate, orient directly into the wind while dropping, sever the large defensive cheliped of hermit crabs before consumption, and rinse prey that is difficult to swallow. Proficiency in prey dropping is acquired through dropping objects in play, trial-and-error learning, and perhaps, observation learning. Observable attributes of predatory shell-dropping support inferences that the gulls are capable of extended concentration, purposefulness, mental representation of spatially and temporally displaced environmental features, cognitive mapping, cognitive modeling, selectivity, and strategy formation. Identical cognitive processes have been inferred to underlie the most sophisticated forms of chimpanzee tool-use. Advanced cognitive capacities are not restricted to chimpanzees and other pongids, and are not associated uniquely with tool use. The chimpocentric bias should be abandoned, and reconstructions of the evolution of intelligence should be modified accordingly. |
||||
| Address | |||||
| Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
| Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
| Language | Summary Language | Original Title | |||
| Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
| Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
| ISSN | ISBN | Medium | |||
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | Approved | no | |||
| Call Number | Equine Behaviour @ team @ | Serial | 4414 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Proops, L.; McComb, K.; Reby, D. | ||||
| Title | Cross-modal individual vocal recognition in the domestic horse | Type | Conference Article | ||
| Year | 2008 | Publication | IESM 2008 | Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume | Issue | Pages | |||
| Keywords | social cognition, animal-human interaction, horses, attention | ||||
| Abstract | Horses fulfill many of the criteria for a species in which it would be adaptive to be capable of individual recognition: they are highly social, form strong and long lasting bonds, their affiliations are rarely kin based, they have a fission-fusion social structure and they possess inter and intra-group dominance hierarchies. We used a novel cross-modal, expectancy violation paradigm to provide the first systematic evidence that a non-human animal – the domestic horse- is capable of cross modal recognition. We believe this paradigm could provide an ideal way to study individual recognition across a wide range of species. For full published details see: Proops L, McComb K, Reby D (2009) Cross-modal individual recognition in domestic horses (Equus caballus). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106: 947-951. |
||||
| Address | Centre for Mammal Vocal Communication Research, Psychology department, | ||||
| Corporate Author | Proops, L | Thesis | |||
| Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
| Language | Summary Language | Original Title | |||
| Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
| Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
| ISSN | ISBN | Medium | |||
| Area | Expedition | Conference | IESM 2008 | ||
| Notes | Talk 15 min IESM 2008 | Approved | yes | ||
| Call Number | Equine Behaviour @ team @ | Serial | 4469 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Proops, L.; McComb, K.; Reby, D. | ||||
| Title | Horse-human interactions: Attention attribution and the use of human cues by domestic horses (Equus caballus). | Type | Conference Article | ||
| Year | 2008 | Publication | IESM 2008 | Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume | Issue | Pages | |||
| Keywords | social cognition; animal-human interaction; horses; attention | ||||
| Abstract | Recent research has shown that domestic dogs are particularly good at reading human attentional cues, often outperforming chimpanzees and hand reared wolves [1, 2]. It has been suggested that the close evolutionary relationship between humans and dogs has led to the development of this ability, however very few other species have been studied [3]. We tested the ability of 24 domestic horses to discriminate between an attentive and inattentive person when choosing whom to approach for food. While the attentive person faced forwards, the inattentive person either stood with their body turned 180° away from the subject (body orientation condition), stood with their body facing forwards but their head facing away (head orientation condition) or stood facing forwards but with their eyes closed (eyes closed condition). A fourth, mixed condition was included where the attentive person stood with their body facing away from the subjects but their head turned towards the subject while the inattentive person stood with their body facing the subject but their head turned away. Horses chose the attentive person significantly more often using the body cue (n = 24, k = 19, p = 0.003), the head cue (n = 24, k = 18, p = 0.011), and the eye cue (n = 24, k = 19, p = 0.003) but not the mixed cue (n = 24, k = 13, p = 0.42). In an additional pilot study, horses were tested in an object choice task. A human experimenter cued one of two buckets by either tapping the bucket (tap condition), orienting their body towards the bucket and pointing (body and point condition), pointing while facing forwards (point condition) or orienting their body towards the bucket (body condition). If the subjects chose the correct bucket they were rewarded. Subjects were able to use the tap cue (n = 31, k = 21, p = 0.035), body + point cue (n= 31, k = 21, p = 0.035) and the point cue (n = 30, k = 21, p = 0.021) but not the body cue (n = 31, k = 11, p = 0.076). These results taken together suggest that domestic horses are also very sensitive to human attentional cues, including gaze. Keywords: social cognition, animal-human interaction, horses, attention attribution, domestication 1. Hare, B., Brown, M., Williamson, C., and Tomasello, M. (2002). The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science 298, 1634-1636. 2. Gacsi, M., Miklosi, A., Varga, O., Topal, J., and Csanyi, V. (2004). Are readers of our face readers of our minds` Dogs (Canis familiaris) show situation-dependent recognition of human’s attention. Animal Cognition 7, 144-153. 3. Hare, B., and Tomasello, M. (2005). Human-like social skills in dogs? Trends Cogn. Sci. 9, 439-444. |
||||
| Address | |||||
| Corporate Author | Proops, L. | Thesis | |||
| Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
| Language | Summary Language | Original Title | |||
| Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
| Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
| ISSN | ISBN | Medium | |||
| Area | Expedition | Conference | IESM 2008 | ||
| Notes | Poster IESM 2008 | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | Equine Behaviour @ team @ | Serial | 4502 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Krueger, K. (ed) | ||||
| Title | Proceedings of the International Equine Science Meeting 2008 | Type | Conference Volume | ||
| Year | 2008 | Publication | IESM 2008 | Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume | Issue | Pages | |||
| Keywords | Equine Ecology; Equine Sociality; Equine Learning; Equine Cognition; Equine Welfare | ||||
| Abstract | Target group: Biologists, Psychologists, Veterinarians and Professionals Meeting target: Because the last international meeting on Equine Science took place a couple years ago, there is an urgent need for equine scientists to exchange scientific knowledge, coordinate research provide knowledge for practical application, and discus research results among themselves and with professionals who work with horses. Additionally, dialog concerning the coordination of the study “Equitation Science” in Europe is urgently needed. Coordination and cooperation shall arise from the meeting, enrich the research, and advance the application of scientific knowledge for the horses` welfare. |
||||
| Address | |||||
| Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
| Publisher | Xenophon Verlag | Place of Publication | Wald | Editor | Krueger, K. |
| Language | English | Summary Language | Original Title | ||
| Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
| Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
| ISSN | ISBN | 978-3-9808134-0-2 | Medium | ||
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | Approved | no | |||
| Call Number | Equine Behaviour @ team @ | Serial | 4508 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Drummond, H. | ||||
| Title | Dominance in vertebrate broods and litters | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 2006 | Publication | Quarterly Review of Biology | Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume | 81 | Issue | 1 | Pages | 3-32 |
| Keywords | Aggression; Assessment; Dominance; Individual recognition; Sibling conflict; Trained losing | ||||
| Abstract | Drawing on the concepts and theory of dominance in adult vertebrates, this article categorizes the relationships of dominance between infant siblings, identifies the behavioral mechanisms that give rise to those relationships, and proposes a model to explain their evolution. Dominance relationships in avian broods can be classified according to the agonistic roles of dominants and subordinates as “aggression-submission,” “aggression-resistance, ” “aggression-aggression,” “aggression-avoidance,” “rotating dominance,” and “flock dominance.” These relationships differ mainly in the submissiveness/pugnacity of subordinates, which is pivotal, and in the specificity/generality of the learning processes that underlie them. As in the dominance hierarchies of adult vertebrates, agonistic roles are engendered and maintained by several mechanisms, including differential fighting ability, assessment, trained winning and losing (especially in altricial species), learned individual relationships (especially in precocial species), site-specific learning, and probably group-level effects. An evolutionary framework in which the species-typical dominance relationship is determined by feeding mode, confinement, cost of subordination, and capacity for individual recognition, can be extended to mammalian litters and account for the aggression-submission and aggression-resistance observed in distinct populations of spotted hyenas and the “site-specific dominance” (teat ownership) of some pigs, felids, and hyraxes. Little is known about agonism in the litters of other mammals or broods of poikilotherms, but some species of fish and crocodilians have the potential for dominance among broodmates. Copyright © 2006 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. | ||||
| Address | Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, A.P. 70-275, 04510 D.F., Mexico | ||||
| Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
| Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
| Language | Summary Language | Original Title | |||
| Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
| Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
| ISSN | ISBN | Medium | |||
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | Cited By (since 1996): 20; Export Date: 23 October 2008; Source: Scopus | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | Equine Behaviour @ team @ | Serial | 4559 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Nakagawa, S.; Waas, J.R. | ||||
| Title | 'O sibling, where art thou?' – A review of avian sibling recognition with respect to the mammalian literature | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 2004 | Publication | Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society | Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume | 79 | Issue | 1 | Pages | 101-119 |
| Keywords | Birds; Direct familiarisation; Indirect familiarisation; Individual recognition; Kin discrimination; Kin recognition; Mammals; Sibling recognition | ||||
| Abstract | Avian literature on sibling recognition is rare compared to that developed by mammalian researchers. We compare avian and mammalian research on sibling recognition to identify why avian work is rare, how approaches differ and what avian and mammalian researchers can learn from each other. Three factors: (1) biological differences between birds and mammals, (2) conceptual biases and (3) practical constraints, appear to influence our current understanding. Avian research focuses on colonial species because sibling recognition is considered adaptive where 'mixing potential' of dependent young is high; research on a wider range of species, breeding systems and ecological conditions is now needed. Studies of acoustic recognition cues dominate avian literature; other types of cues (e.g. visual, olfactory) deserve further attention. The effect of gender on avian sibling recognition has yet to be investigated; mammalian work shows that gender can have important influences. Most importantly, many researchers assume that birds recognise siblings through 'direct familiarisation' (commonly known as associative learning or familiarity); future experiments should also incorporate tests for 'indirect familiarisation' (commonly known as phenotype matching). If direct familiarisation proves crucial, avian research should investigate how periods of separation influence sibling discrimination. Mammalian researchers typically interpret sibling recognition in broad functional terms (nepotism, optimal outbreeding); some avian researchers more successfully identify specific and testable adaptive explanations, with greater relevance to natural contexts. We end by reporting exciting discoveries from recent studies of avian sibling recognition that inspire further interest in this topic. | ||||
| Address | Department of Biological Sciences, University Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand | ||||
| Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
| Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
| Language | Summary Language | Original Title | |||
| Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
| Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
| ISSN | ISBN | Medium | |||
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | Cited By (since 1996): 9; Export Date: 23 October 2008; Source: Scopus | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | Equine Behaviour @ team @ | Serial | 4567 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Trillmich, F.; Rehling, A. | ||||
| Title | Animal Communication: Parent-Offspring | Type | Book Chapter | ||
| Year | 2006 | Publication | Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics | Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume | Issue | Pages | 284-288 | ||
| Keywords | Begging Strategies; Communication; Competition; Feeding Strategies; Fitness; Parental Care; Parent-Offspring Conflict; Recognition; Sibling Conflict | ||||
| Abstract | Parent-offspring communication has evolved under strong selection to guarantee that the valuable resource of parental care is expended efficiently on raising offspring. To ensure allocation of parental care to their own offspring, individual recognition becomes established in higher vertebrates when the young become mobile at a time when a nest site can no longer provide a safe cue to recognition. Such recognition needs to be established by rapid, sometimes imprinting-like, processes in animals producing precocial offspring. In parents, offering strategies that stimulate feeding and entice offspring to approach the right site have evolved. Such parental signals can be olfactory, acoustic, or visual. In offspring, begging strategies involve shuffling for the best place to obtain food – be this the most productive teat or the best position in the nest. This involves signals that make the offspring particularly obvious to the parent. Parents often feed young according to their signaling intensity but may also show favoritism for weaker offspring. Offspring signals also serve to communicate the continuing presence of the young and may thereby maintain brood-care behavior in parents. Internal processes in parents may end parental care irrespective of further signaling by offspring, thus ensuring that offspring cannot manipulate parents into providing substantially more care than is optimal for their own fitness. | ||||
| Address | |||||
| Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
| Publisher | Elsevier | Place of Publication | Oxford | Editor | Keith Brown |
| Language | Summary Language | Original Title | |||
| Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
| Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
| ISSN | ISBN | 9780080448541 | Medium | ||
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | Approved | no | |||
| Call Number | Equine Behaviour @ team @ | Serial | 4642 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | de Waal, F.B.M.; Luttrell, L.M. | ||||
| Title | Mechanisms of social reciprocity in three primate species: Symmetrical relationship characteristics or cognition? | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 1988 | Publication | Ethology and Sociobiology | Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume | 9 | Issue | 2–4 | Pages | 101-118 |
| Keywords | Reciprocity; Agonistic intervention; Cognition; Chimpanzees; Macaques | ||||
| Abstract | Agonistic intervention behavior was observed in captive groups of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), and stumptail monkeys (M. arctoides). Reciprocity correlations of interventions were determined while removing from the data the effects of several symmetrical relationship characteristics, that is, matrillineal kinship, proximity relations, and same-sex combination. It was considered likely that if significant reciprocity persisted after controlling for these characteristics, the reciprocity was based on cognitive mechanisms. Statistical significance was tested by means of recently developed matrix permutation procedures. All three species exhibited significant reciprocity with regard to beneficial interventions, even after controlling for symmetrical traits. Harmful interventions were, however, reciprocal among chimpanzees only. This species showed a “revenge system”, that is, if A often intervened against B, B did the same to A. In contrast, both macaque species showed significantly inversed reciprocity in their harmful interventions: if A often intervened against B, B rarely intervened against A. Further analysis indicates that the strict hierarchy of macaques prevents them from achieving complete reciprocity. Compared to chimpanzees, macaques rarely intervene against higher ranking group members. The observed contrast can be partially explained on the basis of differences in available space, as indicated by a comparison of indoor and outdoor living conditions for the chimpanzee colony. Yet, even when such spatial factors are taken into account, substantial behavior differences between chimpanzees and macaques remain. | ||||
| Address | |||||
| Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
| Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
| Language | Summary Language | Original Title | |||
| Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
| Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
| ISSN | 0162-3095 | ISBN | Medium | ||
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | Approved | no | |||
| Call Number | Equine Behaviour @ team @ | Serial | 5809 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||