|
|
Robinson, T. A., Foster, T. M., Temple, W., & Poling, A. (1995). Performance of domestic hens under progressive-ratio schedules of food delivery. Behav. Process., 34(3), 233–239.
Abstract: Domestic hens were exposed to progressive-ratio 2 and progressive-ratio 10 schedules of food delivery with different initial ratios (2, 10, 20, 30, and 40). Breaking points, defined as the largest ratios completed before responding ceased for 600 consecutive seconds, were recorded under all conditions. In general, breaking points were higher under the PR 10 schedule than under the PR 2 schedule, and the value of the initial ratio did not systematically affect the breaking point. The former finding suggests that relative satiation affected breaking points in the present study, but the latter finding suggests that the primary determinant was the `price' of the reinforcer, defined in terms of the number of responses required to produce it. Breaking points were similar under conditions where initial ratios changed from session to session and under more conventional conditions, where initial ratios remained unchanged over several sessions.
|
|
|
|
Schloegl, C., Kotrschal, K., & Bugnyar, T. (2008). Modifying the object-choice task: Is the way you look important for ravens? Behav. Process., 77(1), 61–65.
Abstract: Most animals seem to have difficulties in using gaze cues to find hidden food in object-choice tasks. For instance, chimpanzees usually fail in these tests, even though they are capable of following other's gaze geometrically behind barriers. Similar to chimpanzees, common ravens are skilled in tracking other's gaze but fail in object-choice tasks. We here explored whether procedural modifications, which had been used successfully in chimpanzees, would also yield positive results in ravens. In our modifications (a) the experimenter approached the cup while gazing at it, (b) the gaze cue was accompanied by a sound and (c) the experimenter could actually see the food while giving the gaze cue. Two out of seven birds performed above chance level in some of these conditions. However, we ascribe this improvement to the individuals' learning ability rather than to an understanding of the communicative nature of the task. This interpretation is further supported by results of a follow-up experiment suggesting that ravens may not rely on conspecifics' gaze cues for finding food caches in a natural foraging context. In sum, our results suggest that ravens may not transfer their gaze follow abilities to foraging situations involving hidden food.
|
|
|
|
Shettleworth, S. J. (2005). Taking the best for learning. Behav. Process., 69(2), 147–9; author reply 159–63.
Abstract: Examples of how animals learn when multiple, sometimes redundant, cues are present provide further examples not considered by Hutchinson and Gigerenzer that seem to fit the principle of taking the best. “The best” may the most valid cue in the present circumstances; evolution may also produce species-specific biases to use the most functionally relevant cues.
|
|
|
|
Sigurjónsdóttir, H. (2007). Equine learning behaviour: The importance of evolutionary and ecological approach in research. Behav. Process., 76, 40–42.
|
|
|
|
Siniscalchi, M., Padalino, B., Lusito, R., & Quaranta, A. (2014). Is the left forelimb preference indicative of a stressful situation in horses? Behav. Process., 107, 61–67.
Abstract: Abstract Evidence for behavioural and brain lateralisation is now widespread among the animal kingdom; lateralisation of limb use (pawedness) occurs in several mammals including both feral and domestic horses. We investigated limb preferences in 14 Quarter Horse during different motor tasks (walking, stepping on and off a step, truck loading and unloading). Population lateralisation was observed in two tasks: horses preferentially used their left forelimb during truck loading and stepping off a step. The results also revealed that horses showed higher scores for anxious behaviours during truck loading suggesting that the use of the left forelimb in this task may reflect the main role of the right hemisphere in control of behaviour during stressful situation.
|
|
|
|
Slater, C., & Dymond, S. (2011). Using differential reinforcement to improve equine welfare: Shaping appropriate truck loading and feet handling. Behav. Process., 86(3), 329–339.
Abstract: Inappropriate behavior during common handling procedures with horses is often subject to aversive treatment. The present study replicated and extended previous findings using differential reinforcement to shape appropriate equine handling behavior. In Study 1, a multiple baseline across subjects design was used with four horses to determine first the effects of shaping target-touch responses and then successive approximations of full truck loading under continuous and intermittent schedules of reinforcement. Full loading responses were shaped and maintained in all four horses and occurrences of inappropriate behaviors reduced to zero. Generalization of the loading response was also observed to both a novel trainer and trailer. In Study 2, a changing criterion design was used to increase the duration of feet handling with one horse. The horse's responding reached the terminal duration criterion of 1 min and showed consistent generalization and one-week maintenance. Overall, the results of both studies support the use of applied equine training systems based on positive reinforcement for increasing appropriate behavior during common handling procedures.
|
|
|
|
Snycerski, S., Laraway, S., & Poling, A. (2005). Response acquisition with immediate and delayed conditioned reinforcement. Behav. Process., 68(1), 1–11.
Abstract: Groups comprising eight rats initially were exposed to response-independent water deliveries, then to conditions under which a lever-press response raised an empty dipper immediately or after a resetting delay of 15, 30, or 45 s. When their performance was compared to that of control animals using a 90% confidence level, six rats in the immediate-reinforcement group met the primary criterion for response acquisition during a single 6-h session; 4, 4, and 3 did so in the 15, 30, and 45 s delay groups, respectively. Similar evidence of acquisition was obtained when a 95% confidence level was used. With a 99% confidence level, however, evidence of acquisition was not compelling. Although these data appear to provide the first demonstration of response acquisition in the absence of handshaping or autoshaping under conditions where the putative reinforcer is both conditioned and delayed, they also demonstrate that whether response acquisition occurs depends, in part, on how it is defined.
|
|
|
|
Sueur, C., & Petit, O. (2008). Shared or unshared consensus decision in macaques? Behav. Process., 78(1), 84–92.
Abstract: Members of a social group have to make collective decisions in order to synchronise their activities. In a shared consensus decision, all group members can take part in the decision whereas in an unshared consensus decision, one individual, usually a dominant member of the group, takes the decision for the rest of the group. It has been suggested that the type of decision-making of a species could be influenced by its social style. To investigate this further, we studied collective movements in two species with opposed social systems, the Tonkean macaque (Macaca tonkeana) and the rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta). From our results, it appears that the decision to move is the result of the choices and actions of several individuals in both groups. However, this consensus decision involved nearly all group members in Tonkean macaques whereas dominant and old individuals took a prominent role in rhesus macaques. Thus, we suggest that Tonkean macaques display equally shared consensus decisions to move, whereas in the same context rhesus macaque exhibit partially shared consensus decisions. Such a difference in making a collective decision might be linked to the different social systems of the two studied species.
|
|
|
|
Sutton J.E., & Roberts W.A. (1998). Do pigeons show incidental timing? Some experiments and a suggested hierarchical framework for the study of attention in animal cognition. Behav. Process., 44, 263–275.
|
|
|
|
Vallortigara, G., & Andrew, R. J. (1994). Differential involvement of right and left hemisphere in individual recognition in the domestic chick. Behav. Process., 33(1-2), 41–57.
Abstract: Right hemisphere advantage in individual recognition (as shown by differences between response to strangers and companions) is clear in the domestic chick. Chicks using the left eye (and so, thanks to the complete optic decussation, predominantly the right hemisphere) discriminate between stranger and companion. Chicks using the right eye discriminate less clearly or not at all. The ability of left eyed chicks to respond to differences between strangers and companions stimuli is associated with a more general ability to detect and respond to novelty: this difference between left and right eyed chicks also holds for stimuli which are not social partners. The right hemisphere also shows advantage in tasks with a spatial component (topographical learning; response to change in the spatial context of a stimulus) in the chick, as in humans. Similar specialisations of the two hemispheres are also revealed in tests which involve olfactory cues presented by social partners. The special properties of the left hemisphere are less well established in the chick. Evidence reviewed here suggests that it tends to respond to selected properties of a stimulus and to use them to assign it to a category; such assignment then allows an appropriate response. When exposed to an imprinting stimulus (visual or auditory) a chick begins by using right eye or ear (suggesting left hemisphere control), and then shifts to the left eye or ear (suggesting right hemisphere control), as exposure continues. The left hemisphere here is thus involved whilst behaviour is dominated by vigorous response to releasing stimuli presented by an object. Subsequent learning about the full detailed properties of the stimulus, which is crucial for individual recognition, may explain the shift to right hemisphere control after prolonged exposure to the social stimulus. There is a marked sex difference in choice tests: females tend to choose companions in tests where males choose strangers. It is possible that this difference is specifically caused by stronger motivation to sustain social contact in female chicks, for which there is extensive evidence. However, sex differences in response to change in familiar stimuli are also marked in tests which do not involve social partners. Finally, in both sexes there are two periods during development in which there age-dependent shifts in bias to use one or other hemisphere. These periods (days 3-5 and 8-11) coincide with two major changes in the social behaviour of chicks reared by a hen in a normal brood. It is argued that one function of these periods is to bring fully into play the hemisphere most appropriate to the type of response to, and learning about, social partners which is needed at particular points in development. Parallels are discussed between the involvement of lateralised processes in the recognition of social partners in chicks and humans.
|
|
