|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Moeller, B. A., McCall, C. A., Silverman, S. J., & McElhenney, W. H. (). Estimation of Saliva Production in Crib-Biting and Normal Horses. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science, 28(2), 85–90.
Abstract: Increasing saliva flow to buffer the stomach has been hypothesized as a basis for crib-biting in horses. Saliva amounts in seven cribbing and seven noncribbing (control) horses were compared either pre- and post-cribbing or at pre- and post-5-minute intervals for controls. A pre-weighed cellulose sponge was used to collect saliva at the exit of the submandibular gland for 30 seconds, then reweighed. Data were analyzed as repeated measures. Mean saliva weight overall was similar between cribbing and control horses (1.2 and 1.5 g, respectively, SE = 0.2). However, mean saliva weight for pre- and post-samples (1.5 and 1.2 g, respectively, SE = 0.06) for all horses was significantly lower (P < .05) in the post-sample, indicating a drying effect of the sponge. Because of a strong tendency (P < .06) for a treatment-by-sampling time interaction, data were analyzed by sampling time and cribbing status. Mean saliva weights in the pre-sample were 0.43 g higher (P < .03) in control than cribbing horses. Control horses showed a 0.38 g decrease (P < .01) in saliva weight between pre- and post-samples, which was not evident in cribbing horses. To determine whether cribbing offset the saliva decrease seen in control horses, nine cribbing horses were sampled as before but prevented from cribbing between samples. A similar reduction (0.39 g, P < .01) in saliva weights between samples with cribbing allowed versus cribbing prevented was seen in these horses as was seen in control horses in the initial study. Because cribbing does produce saliva, gastrointestinal irritation could be a motivating cause for cribbing.
|
|
