|
|
Kuroshima, H., Fujita, K., Adachi, I., Iwata, K., & Fuyuki, A. (2003). A Capuchin monkey (Cebus apella) recognizes when people do and do not know the location of food. Anim. Cogn., 6(4), 283–291.
Abstract: In a previous study, Kuroshima and colleagues demonstrated that capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) learned to discriminate between a “knower” who inspected a box for food, and a “guesser” who did not. The aim of the present study was to specify whether the subjects learned a simple conditional discrimination or a causal relationship that seeing leads to knowing. In experiment 1, we introduced five types of novel containers to two subjects. Each container was of different shape and color. The subjects gradually learned to reach toward the container the knower suggested. In experiment 2, we diversified the behavior of the knower and the guesser. In experiment 3, in order to eliminate the possibility of discrimination based on differences in the magnitude and the complexity of two trainers, we equated their behaviors. One subject adapted to the novel behaviors of the knower and the guesser, successfully discriminating the two trainers. Thus this monkey clearly learned to use the inspecting action of the knower and the non-inspecting action of the guesser as a discriminative cue to recognize the baited container. This result suggests that one capuchin monkey learned to recognize the relationship between seeing and knowing.
|
|
|
|
Takimoto, A., & Fujita, K. (2008). Are horses (Equus caballus) sensitive to human attentional states? In IESM 2008.
Abstract: The ability to reliably detect what others are attending to seems important for social species to interact with their partners. Domestic horses (Equus caballus) have lived with humans for over five thousand years, hence they might have developed sensitivity to human attention. In the present study, we investigated whether horses would discriminate the situation in which a human experimenter could see them from the situation in which she could not. Specifically, we tested whether horses understand the role of eyes in human attentional states, produce more visual gestures when the experimenter can see their begging behaviors and produce more auditory or tactile gestures when she can not. We used with a slight modification the paradigm that previously yielded support for chimpanzee understanding of human attention (Hostetter et al. 2007). Twelve horses were offered food by the experimenter who showed various attentional states in front of them. We scored frequency of begging behaviors by the horses. In experiment 1, we set three kinds of condition: hand over the eyes, hand over the mouth and away. In the last condition there was only a food in front of horses, which was a control condition. The results showed that horses produced more auditory or tactile begging behaviors when the experimenter“s eyes were not visible than when her eyes were visible, but there was no difference in visual begging behaviors. In experiment 2, we set two kinds of condition: eyes closed and eyes open. The horses also produced more auditory or tactile begging behaviors when the experimenter”s eyes were closed than when they were open. However, there was no difference in visual begging behaviors. These results show that horses discriminate the situation in which humans can see from that in which humans can not. Of special interest, horses increased only auditory or tactile behaviors, not all types of communicative behaviors, when the experimenter could not see their begging behaviors. This result suggests that horses are sensitive to human attentional states. Moreover, horses may do recognize the eyes as an important indicator of whether or not humans will respond to their behavior and they may be able to behave flexibly depending upon human attentional states
|
|
|
|
Hori, Y., Takimoto, A., & Fujita, K. (2012). Are there breed difference in referential behavior in horses (Equus caballus)? In K. Krueger (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2. International Equine Science Meeting (Vol. in press). Wald: Xenophon Publishing.
Abstract: Domesticated animals are characterized by variability of breeds. There is a great diversity in body size and/or coat color between different breeds. However, there are few scientific researches about difference in cognition and behavior between breeds. Comparison of behavior between breeds may be useful for the study of genetics behind the diversity of cognition and behavior. In the present study, we investigated behavioral differences between horse breeds. We tested two different breeds which have different histories, thoroughbreds and creoles. Thoroughbreds are racing horses which have been exposed to strict selection toward racing performance for about 300 years. Creoles are descendents of horses which were brought to South America by Spanish people in 15th century and used by native cowboys for riding. We compared the behavior in a difficult situation by using an “unsolvable task”. The experimenter put a food reward into a transparent box and closed it firmly so that horses could not take the reward. We compared the referential behavior (gazing behavior toward the experimenter) between thoroughbreds and creoles. We analyzed referential behavior by using generalized linear models (GLM) and model selection by Akaike’s information criterion (AIC). There were no effect of breed in the frequency and the duration of the referential behavior. But the latency before looking at the experimenter tended to be shorter in thoroughbreds than in creoles. This result suggests that there may be breed differences in horses’ social cognition and behavior. However, the effect of sex was also seen. Furthermore, we could not exclude the environmental effect (e. g. feeding environments, trainings) in this study. So we cannot explain the variation in referential behavior by breed effect only. We need to replicate the result by controlling environmental effects.
|
|
|
|
Takimoto, A., Kuroshima, H., & Fujita, K. (2010). Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) are sensitive to others’ reward: an experimental analysis of food-choice for conspecifics. Anim. Cogn., 13(2), 249–261.
Abstract: Abstract The issue whether non-human primates have other-regarding preference and/or inequity aversion has been under debate. We investigated whether tufted capuchin monkeys are sensitive to others’ reward in various experimental food sharing settings. Two monkeys faced each other. The operator monkey chose one of two food containers placed between the participants, each containing a food item for him/herself and another for the recipient. The recipient passively received either high- or low-value food depending on the operator’s choice, whereas the operator obtained the same food regardless of his/her choice. The recipients were either the highest- or lowest-ranking member of the group, and the operators were middle-ranking. In Experiment 1, the operators chose the high-value food for the subordinate recipient more frequently than when there was no recipient, whereas they were indifferent in their choice for the dominant. This differentiated behavior could have been because the dominant recipient frequently ate the low-value food. In Experiment 2, we increased the difference in the value of the two food items so that both recipients would reject the low-value food. The results were the same as in Experiment 1. In Experiment 3, we placed an opaque screen in front of the recipient to examine effects of visual contact between the participants. The operators’ food choice generally shifted toward providing the low-value food for the recipient. These results suggest that capuchins are clearly sensitive to others’ reward and that they show other-regarding preference or a form of inequity aversion depending upon the recipients and the presence of visual contact.
|
|
|
|
Takaoka, A., Maeda, T., Hori, Y., & Fujita, K. (2015). Do dogs follow behavioral cues from an unreliable human? Anim.Cogn., 18(2), 475–483.
Abstract: Dogs are known to consistently follow human pointing gestures. In this study, we asked whether dogs “automatically” do this or whether they flexibly adjust their behavior depending upon the reliability of the pointer, demonstrated in an immediately preceding event. We tested pet dogs in a version of the object choice task in which a piece of food was hidden in one of the two containers. In Experiment 1, Phase 1, an experimenter pointed at the baited container; the second container was empty. In Phase 2, after showing the contents of both containers to the dogs, the experimenter pointed at the empty container. In Phase 3, the procedure was exactly as in Phase 1. We compared the dogs’ responses to the experimenter’s pointing gestures in Phases 1 and 3. Most dogs followed pointing in Phase 1, but many fewer did so in Phase 3. In Experiment 2, dogs followed a new experimenter’s pointing in Phase 3 following replication of procedures of Phases 1 and 2 in Experiment 1. This ruled out the possibility that dogs simply lost motivation to participate in the task in later phases. These results suggest that not only dogs are highly skilled at understanding human pointing gestures, but also they make inferences about the reliability of a human who presents cues and consequently modify their behavior flexibly depending on the inference.
|
|
|
|
Takimoto, A., Hori, Y. T., K,, & Fujita, K. (2012). Do horses (Equus caballus) show a preference for a fair person? In K. Krueger (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2. International Equine Science Meeting (Vol. in press). Wald: Xenophon Publishing.
Abstract: It is advantageous to identify individuals who are likely to behave fairly and those who are not. This ability to judge others’ fairness seems important for social species to interact or cooperate with their partners. Domestic horses (Equus caballus) have lived with humans for over five thousand years, hence they might have developed sensitivity to human personality. In the present study, we investigated whether horses would discriminate between a person who behaved fairly and a person who behaved unfairly. Specifically, we asked whether horses show a preference for the former. We tested 12 horses (11 thoroughbred and 1 Anglo-Arabian horses) at the horseback-riding club of Kyoto University. They were divided into 6 pairs which consisted of a participant and a partner. A participant was picketed between two polls next to a partner at the hoof washing place. Each horse put his/her mouth in an actor’s hand when the actor (an unfamiliar person) stood in front of them, and then received food from the actor. A fair actor always behaved fairly and gave a small quantity of hay (low-value food) to both of them in return for the task. An unfair actor always behaved unfairly, giving a small quantity of hay to the participant in return for the task, but always giving a piece of carrot (high-value food) to the partner in return for the task. Both actors always stood in front of the partner first, so the partner always did the task and received food from the actor before the participant. Finally, the participant was offered a piece of carrot by the two actors. The participant indicated which offer was accepted by stretching toward the chosen actor. The latter then moved the hand forward to allow the participant to take the food while the other actor’s hand withdrew. The orders (1st or 2nd) and the positions (left or right) of the two actors varied pseudo-randomly across trials. The color of the clothes of the two actors (white or black) was counterbalanced between sessions. We conducted 8 sessions, consisting of 8 experimental trials, across which the actors maintained their respective roles (fair or unfair) of the fair and unfair person. Furthermore, the two actors switched roles across sessions so that they played both roles the same number of times. One session was run per day. If horses can discriminate between fair and unfair people and show a preference for the former, they should choose the former significantly more often than the latter when both actors offered food. The participants showed no overall preference for accepting food from either actor. However, three of six participants showed a side preference. The result of the present study suggests that horses are insensitive to humans’ fairness. Horses may not have expectations about fair treatment.
|
|
|
|
Ushitani, T., Fujita, K., & Yamanaka, R. (2001). Do pigeons (Columba livia) perceive object unity? Anim. Cogn., 4(3), 153–161.
Abstract: Human infants perceive two rods moving in concert behind an occluder as one unitary rod. In four experiments we tested whether pigeons also perceive unity of objects. Pigeons were trained on a matching-to-sample task to discriminate between one unitary rod moving at a constant speed and two aligned rods moving together at the same speed. The latter stimulus was identical to the former except for a gap in the center. In experiment 1, we tested pigeons in probe trials in which a rectangle occluded the center of the sample rods, to see which comparison stimulus, the unitary rod or the aligned two rods, the subjects would match to the sample. Two of the three subjects pecked at the two rods significantly more often than at the unitary rod. In experiment 2, we trained the same pigeons to match the sample rods moving “in front of” the occluder. Pigeons persisted in matching two separate rods to the unitary rod moving in front of the occluder. In experiments 3 and 4, we used a parallelogram and an undulating shape as the occluder to alter the shape and the size of the portions above and below the occluder by the motion of the sample rods. Both subjects chose the two rods significantly more often than chance in experiment 3 and one of them did so in experiment 4. The results suggest that pigeons do not complete occluded portions even though the two elements move in concert. These negative results suggest that some alternative way of identifying objects may have evolved in pigeons.
|
|
|
|
Anderson, J. R., Kuroshima, H., Kuwahata, H., & Fujita, K. (2004). Do squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) and capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) predict that looking leads to touching? Anim. Cogn., 7(3), 185–192.
Abstract: Squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) and capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) were tested using an expectancy violation procedure to assess whether they use an actor's gaze direction, signaled by congruent head and eye orientation, to predict subsequent behavior. The monkeys visually habituated to a repeated sequence in which the actor (a familiar human or a puppet) looked at an object and then picked it up, but they did not react strongly when the actor looked at an object but then picked up another object. Capuchin monkeys' responses in the puppet condition were slightly more suggestive of expectancy. There was no differential responding to congruent versus incongruent look-touch sequences when familiarization trials were omitted. The weak findings contrast with a strongly positive result previously reported for tamarin monkeys. Additional evidence is required before concluding that behavior prediction based on gaze cues typifies primates; other approaches for studying how they process attention cues are indicated.
|
|
|
|
Fujita, K., Kuroshima, H., & Masuda, T. (2002). Do tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) spontaneously deceive opponents? A preliminary analysis of an experimental food-competition contest between monkeys. Anim. Cogn., 5(1), 19–25.
Abstract: A new laboratory procedure which allows the study of deceptive behavior in nonhuman primates is described. Pairs of tufted capuchin monkeys faced each other in a food-competition contest. Two feeder boxes were placed between the monkeys. A piece of food was placed in one of the boxes. The subordinate individual was able to see the food and to open the box to obtain the bait. A dominant male was unable to see the food or to open the box but was able to take the food once the box was opened by the subordinate. In experiment 1, two of four subordinate monkeys spontaneously started to open the unbaited box first with increasing frequency. Experiment 2 confirmed that this “deceptive” act was not due to a drop in the rate of reinforcement caused by the usurping dominant male, under the situation in which food sometimes automatically dropped from the opened box. In experiment 3, two subordinate monkeys were rerun in the same situation as experiment 1. One of them showed some recovery of the “deceptive” act but the other did not; instead the latter tended to position himself on the side where there was no food before he started to open the box. Although the results do not clearly indicate spontaneous deception, we suggest that operationally defined spontaneous deceptive behaviors in monkeys can be analyzed with experimental procedures such as those used here.
|
|
|
|
Adachi, I., Kuwahata, H., & Fujita, K. (2007). Dogs recall their owner's face upon hearing the owner's voice. Anim. Cogn., 10(1), 17–21.
Abstract: Abstract We tested whether dogs have a cross-modal representation of human individuals. We presented domestic dogs with a photo of either the owner's or a stranger's face on the LCD monitor after playing back a voice of one of those persons. A voice and a face matched in half of the trials (Congruent condition) and mismatched in the other half (Incongruent condition). If our subjects activate visual images of the voice, their expectation would be contradicted in Incongruent condition. It would result in the subjects` longer looking times in Incongruent condition than in Congruent condition. Our subject dogs looked longer at the visual stimulus in Incongruent condition than in Congruent condition. This suggests that dogs actively generate their internal representation of the owner's face when they hear the owner calling them. This is the first demonstration that nonhuman animals do not merely associate auditory and visual stimuli but also actively generate a visual image from auditory information. Furthermore, our subject also looked at the visual stimulus longer in Incongruent condition in which the owner's face followed an unfamiliar person's voice than in Congruent condition in which the owner's face followed the owner's voice. Generating a particular visual image in response to an unfamiliar voice should be difficult, and any expected images from the voice ought to be more obscure or less well defined than that of the owners. However, our subjects looked longer at the owner's face in Incongruent condition than in Congruent condition. This may indicate that dogs may have predicted that it should not be the owner when they heard the unfamiliar person's voice.
|
|
