Equine and Animal Cognition Reference Database -- Query Results

McCall, C. A., Salters, M. A., & Simpson, S. M. (1993). Relationship between number of conditioning trials per training session and avoidance learning in horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 36(4), 291–299. Abstract: Sixteen horses were used to determine if number of trials given per training session (5, 10, 15 or 20) affected learning performance in an avoidance conditioning task. The horse had to move from one side of a test pen to the other during an auditory cue presentation to avoid aversive stimulation. A pen 8 mx3.6 m, divided into two equal sections by a 13-cm diameter plastic pipe lying on the ground, was used as the test pen. Painted plywood panels were fastened to the fence in half the pen to help horses distinguish visually between the two parts. A 10-s auditory cue was used as a signal for horses to move from one side of the test pen to the other. A 20-s intertrial interval was used. Training sessions were conducted every third day. Each trial was recorded as an avoidance (the horse completed the task during auditory cue presentation and avoided aversive stimulus) or an error (the horse received aversive stimulus). After completing ten consecutive avoidances (criterion), the horse was removed from the study. Numbers of training sessions, trials, avoidances and errors until reaching criterion were recorded for each horse. Horses varied greatly within these variables with ranges of 3-18 sessions, 37-121 trials, 20-68 avoidances and 17-53 errors to criterion. No differences were detected (P>0.05) in the number of conditioning trials per training session (treatment) for the mean number of trials, avoidances or errors to criterion. Number of training sessions to criterion differed (P<0.01) among treatments, indicating that an optimum number of learning trials per training session might exist. Mean sessions to criterion for horses receiving 5, 10, 15 and 20 trials per session were 15.1+/-1.3, 5.8+/-1.1, 5.3+/-1.1 and 4.6+/-1.1, respectively. Regression analysis indicated that 16.2 trials per training session would minimize number of sessions to criterion. Although it is widely assumed that learning efficiency in horses is decreased when intense activity is concentrated into a small number of sessions, these results indicate that moderate repetition of training activities is needed for efficient learning. Keywords: Horse; Learning; Avoidance conditioning https://references.equine-behaviour.de/show.php?record=3686
McCall, C. A., Salters, M. A., Johnson, K. B., Silverman, S. J., McElhenney, W. H., & Lishak, R. S. (2003). Equine utilization of a previously learned visual stimulus to solve a novel task. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 82(3), 163–172. Abstract: Forty-four horses were used to determine if a learned stimulus could be used to increase acquisition of a response unrelated to the original learned task. Horses were paired by age, breed and sex. One randomly chosen horse from each pair served as the control while the remaining horse was trained to respond to a visual stimulus by pushing a lever to obtain a food reward. In Experiment I (n=28), the food reward was delivered in a feed box located equidistant between two levers located 2.7 m apart on one wall of the test stall. Trained horses were given 30 training trials daily until they achieved at least 85% correct responses in three nonconsecutive days. After each trained horse reached criterion, both horses in the pair were tested in 30 trials daily for five consecutive days in a modified Y maze. The stimulus that indicated the correct lever in the initial training task was used to signify the correct arm of the maze for both the control and trained horses. The correct arm of the maze was changed randomly during each daily session, and correct choices resulted in a food reward. In Experiment II (n=16), levers were located on opposite walls (11 m apart) of the test stall, and the stimulus and modified Y maze were simplified. Trained horses received 15 training trials daily until they reached at least 85% correct responses on three consecutive days. As each trained horse achieved this criterion, both horses in the pair were tested in a maze for 15 trials daily for 7 days. Again, the stimulus from initial lever-pressing task was used to signify the rewarded arm of the maze. Correct choices of trained and control horses in both experiments were compared using a paired t-test. In Experiment I, no differences (P>0.34) in mean correct responses were detected between trained and control horses on the first day in the maze (15.3 and 16.8, respectively) or after 5 days in the maze (84.0 and 82.1, respectively). Similarly, in Experiment II, trained and control horses did not differ (P>0.50) in mean correct responses on the first day (6.9 and 7.4, respectively) or after 7 days in the maze (63.6 and 61.6, respectively). These results indicate that the stimuli used to solve the lever-pressing task were not utilized by horses in the maze task, and that horses may have difficulty transferring learned visual stimuli to new tasks. Keywords: Horse; Learned stimulus; Novel task; Discrimination https://references.equine-behaviour.de/show.php?record=3587

Abstract: Sixteen horses were used to determine if number of trials given per training session (5, 10, 15 or 20) affected learning performance in an avoidance conditioning task. The horse had to move from one side of a test pen to the other during an auditory cue presentation to avoid aversive stimulation. A pen 8 mx3.6 m, divided into two equal sections by a 13-cm diameter plastic pipe lying on the ground, was used as the test pen. Painted plywood panels were fastened to the fence in half the pen to help horses distinguish visually between the two parts. A 10-s auditory cue was used as a signal for horses to move from one side of the test pen to the other. A 20-s intertrial interval was used. Training sessions were conducted every third day. Each trial was recorded as an avoidance (the horse completed the task during auditory cue presentation and avoided aversive stimulus) or an error (the horse received aversive stimulus). After completing ten consecutive avoidances (criterion), the horse was removed from the study. Numbers of training sessions, trials, avoidances and errors until reaching criterion were recorded for each horse. Horses varied greatly within these variables with ranges of 3-18 sessions, 37-121 trials, 20-68 avoidances and 17-53 errors to criterion. No differences were detected (P>0.05) in the number of conditioning trials per training session (treatment) for the mean number of trials, avoidances or errors to criterion. Number of training sessions to criterion differed (P<0.01) among treatments, indicating that an optimum number of learning trials per training session might exist. Mean sessions to criterion for horses receiving 5, 10, 15 and 20 trials per session were 15.1+/-1.3, 5.8+/-1.1, 5.3+/-1.1 and 4.6+/-1.1, respectively. Regression analysis indicated that 16.2 trials per training session would minimize number of sessions to criterion. Although it is widely assumed that learning efficiency in horses is decreased when intense activity is concentrated into a small number of sessions, these results indicate that moderate repetition of training activities is needed for efficient learning.

Abstract: Forty-four horses were used to determine if a learned stimulus could be used to increase acquisition of a response unrelated to the original learned task. Horses were paired by age, breed and sex. One randomly chosen horse from each pair served as the control while the remaining horse was trained to respond to a visual stimulus by pushing a lever to obtain a food reward. In Experiment I (n=28), the food reward was delivered in a feed box located equidistant between two levers located 2.7 m apart on one wall of the test stall. Trained horses were given 30 training trials daily until they achieved at least 85% correct responses in three nonconsecutive days. After each trained horse reached criterion, both horses in the pair were tested in 30 trials daily for five consecutive days in a modified Y maze. The stimulus that indicated the correct lever in the initial training task was used to signify the correct arm of the maze for both the control and trained horses. The correct arm of the maze was changed randomly during each daily session, and correct choices resulted in a food reward. In Experiment II (n=16), levers were located on opposite walls (11 m apart) of the test stall, and the stimulus and modified Y maze were simplified. Trained horses received 15 training trials daily until they reached at least 85% correct responses on three consecutive days. As each trained horse achieved this criterion, both horses in the pair were tested in a maze for 15 trials daily for 7 days. Again, the stimulus from initial lever-pressing task was used to signify the rewarded arm of the maze. Correct choices of trained and control horses in both experiments were compared using a paired t-test. In Experiment I, no differences (P>0.34) in mean correct responses were detected between trained and control horses on the first day in the maze (15.3 and 16.8, respectively) or after 5 days in the maze (84.0 and 82.1, respectively). Similarly, in Experiment II, trained and control horses did not differ (P>0.50) in mean correct responses on the first day (6.9 and 7.4, respectively) or after 7 days in the maze (63.6 and 61.6, respectively). These results indicate that the stimuli used to solve the lever-pressing task were not utilized by horses in the maze task, and that horses may have difficulty transferring learned visual stimuli to new tasks.

Keywords: Horse; Learned stimulus; Novel task; Discrimination

https://references.equine-behaviour.de/show.php?record=3587