|
|
Petherick, J. C., Seawright, E., & Waddington, D. (1993). Influence of motivational state on choice of food or a dustbathing/foraging substrate by domestic hens. Behav. Process., 28(3), 209–220.
Abstract: Domestic hens were trained to run a Y-maze and make an association between differently coloured doorways and access to food pellets or sand. The hens were tested for their choice of doorway when the goals were not visible from the choice point and when they were food or sand deprived. Hens made the choice appropriate to their deprivation state (correct choice) significantly more often for food than sand and were faster at choosing and entering the goal box when food deprived. In a follow up experiment, the goals were visible from the choice point. Again the hens chose correctly significantly more often when food than sand deprived and made the choice and entered the goal box faster when food deprived. Thus, failure to choose sand in the first experiment was not due to an inability to learn the association, but appears to result from a strong motivation to feed in the Y-maze, even when not food deprived, and a weak motivation to dustbathe or forage, even when sand deprived.
|
|
|
|
Petherick, J. C., Waddington, D., & Duncan, I. J. H. (1991). Learning to gain access to a foraging and dustbathing substrate by domestic fowl: is `out of sight out of mind'? Behav. Process., 22(3), 213–226.
Abstract: Domestic fowl were deprived of the opportunity to perform litter-related behaviour for three or four days and were tested in a Y-maze (which they had previously been trained to run) for their ability to associate a coloured cue with gaining access to peat. When the goal boxes were within sight of the choice point, most birds chose peat. However, when the birds had to rely solely on the coloured cue only one bird from 12 showed learning. However, the birds seemed to have some expectation of a reward, as they ran faster if, on the previous trial, they had chosen peat. The inability of the birds to learn the association may have been an artefact of the schedule of deprivation and testing, for when they were hungry and tested in the same way they were again unable to learn an association between the same coloured cue and food reward. The experiment with peat was repeated using “massed” trials (several trials in immediate succession) during training and testing and six from 15 birds showed learning. These results suggest that the initial failure to learn was probably due to the training and testing schedule, that access to peat appears to be rewarding and that hens can learn an association between an abstract cue and a rewarding consequence. This is consistent with the possibility that domestic fowls may have some cognitive representation of peat when it is out of sight.
|
|
