| Records |
| Author |
McCoy, D.E.; Schiestl, M.; Neilands, P.; Hassall, R.; Gray, R.D.; Taylor, A.H. |
| Title |
New Caledonian Crows Behave Optimistically after Using Tools |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2019 |
Publication |
Current Biology |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume |
|
Issue |
|
Pages |
|
| Keywords |
tool use; New Caledonian crows; optimism; cognitive bias; animal emotion; intrinsic motivation; comparative cognition |
| Abstract |
Summary Are complex, species-specific behaviors in animals reinforced by material reward alone or do they also induce positive emotions? Many adaptive human behaviors are intrinsically motivated: they not only improve our material outcomes, but improve our affect as well [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. Work to date on animal optimism, as an indicator of positive affect, has generally focused on how animals react to change in their circumstances, such as when their environment is enriched [9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14] or they are manipulated by humans [15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23], rather than whether complex actions improve emotional state. Here, we show that wild New Caledonian crows are optimistic after tool use, a complex, species-specific behavior. We further demonstrate that this finding cannot be explained by the crows needing to put more effort into gaining food. Our findings therefore raise the possibility that intrinsic motivation (enjoyment) may be a fundamental proximate cause in the evolution of tool use and other complex behaviors. Video Abstract |
| 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 |
0960-9822 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
Call Number  |
Equine Behaviour @ team @ |
Serial |
6581 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Krueger, K.; Trager, L.; Farmer, K.; Byrne, R. |
| Title |
Tool Use in Horses |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2022 |
Publication |
Animals |
Abbreviated Journal |
Animals |
| Volume |
12 |
Issue |
15 |
Pages |
1876 |
| Keywords |
crowdsourcing; horse; innovation; mule; management; tool use |
| Abstract |
Tool use has not yet been confirmed in horses, mules or donkeys. As this subject is difficult to research with conventional methods, we used a crowdsourcing approach to gather data. We contacted equid owners and carers and asked them to report and video examples of �unusual� behaviour via a dedicated website. We also searched YouTube and Facebook for videos of equids showing tool use. From 635 reports, including 1014 behaviours, we found 20 cases of tool use, 13 of which were unambiguous in that it was clear that the behaviour was not trained, caused by reduced welfare, incidental or accidental. We then assessed (a) the effect of management conditions on tool use and (b) whether the animals used tools alone, or socially, involving other equids or humans. We found that management restrictions were associated with corresponding tool use in 12 of the 13 cases (p = 0.01), e.g., equids using sticks to scrape hay within reach when feed was restricted. Furthermore, 8 of the 13 cases involved other equids or humans, such as horses using brushes to groom others. The most frequent tool use was for foraging, with seven examples, tool use for social purposes was seen in four cases, and there was just one case of tool use for escape. There was just one case of tool use for comfort, and in this instance, there were no management restrictions. Equids therefore can develop tool use, especially when management conditions are restricted, but it is a rare occurrence. |
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
Animals |
| Series Volume |
12 |
Series Issue |
15 |
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
2076-2615 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
Equine Behaviour @ team @ |
Serial |
6695 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Bentley-Condit, V.; Smith, E.O. |
| Title |
Animal tool use: current definitions and an updated comprehensive catalog |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2010 |
Publication |
Behaviour |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume |
147 |
Issue |
2 |
Pages |
185-32 |
| Keywords |
TOOL USE; CATALOG; ANIMAL |
| Abstract |
Despite numerous attempts to define animal tool use over the past four decades, the definition remains elusive and the behaviour classification somewhat subjective. Here, we provide a brief review of the definitions of animal tool use and show how those definitions have been modified over time. While some aspects have remained constant (i.e., the distinction between 'true' and 'borderline' tool use), others have been added (i.e., the distinction between 'dynamic' and 'static' behaviours). We present an updated, comprehensive catalog of documented animal tool use that indicates whether the behaviours observed included any 'true' tool use, whether the observations were limited to captive animals, whether tool manufacture has been observed, and whether the observed tool use was limited to only one individual and, thus, 'anecdotal' (i.e., N = 1). Such a catalog has not been attempted since Beck (1980). In addition to being a useful reference for behaviourists, this catalog demonstrates broad tool use and manufacture trends that may be of interest to phylogenists, evolutionary ecologists, and cognitive evolutionists. Tool use and tool manufacture are shown to be widespread across three phyla and seven classes of the animal kingdom. Moreover, there is complete overlap between the Aves and Mammalia orders in terms of the tool use categories (e.g., food extraction, food capture, agonism) arguing against any special abilities of mammals. The majority of tool users, almost 85% of the entries, use tools in only one of the tool use categories. Only members of the Passeriformes and Primates orders have been observed to use tools in four or more of the ten categories. Thus, observed tool use by some members of these two orders (e.g., Corvus, Papio) is qualitatively different from that of all other animal taxa. Finally, although there are similarities between Aves and Mammalia, and Primates and Passeriformes, primate tool use is qualitatively different. Approximately 35% of the entries for this order demonstrate a breadth of tool use (i.e., three or more categories by any one species) compared to other mammals (0%), Aves (2.4%), and the Passeriformes (3.1%). This greater breadth in tool use by some organisms may involve phylogenetic or cognitive differences � or may simply reflect differences in length and intensity of observations. The impact that tool usage may have had on groups' respective ecological niches and, through niche-construction, on their respective evolutionary trajectories remains a subject for future study. |
| 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 @ :/content/journals/10.1163/000579509x12512865686555 |
Serial |
5859 |
| Permanent link to this record |
