Abstract: We examined whether very young dairy calves are able to discriminate between two people, and whether they use the colour of clothing or other indices to do so. During the familiarisation phase, one person (the familiar rewarder), who always wore the same colour clothes, gave milk, spoke gently and patted the calves in their individual pen for 6 days each week. During the test phase, the calf had to make a choice in an Y-maze placed in front of the gate of its stall. When the calves chose the familiar rewarder, they received 200 ml of milk as reinforcement. When they made the incorrect choice, they received nothing and were returned to their stall. On each test day, the calves made eight choices. The criterion of success was that the calf made at least six correct choices in eight trials on each of two consecutive test days (P<0.021 by the binomial law). The first experiment was carried out with fourteen 1-week-old male and female Holstein calves to see if calves could approach a person, who changed position in the maze, in order to obtain a feed reward. The familiar rewarder wore the same clothes as during the period of familiarisation and was in one arm of the Y-maze. The other arm was empty and the position of the familiar rewarder in the maze was randomised. Eleven of the 14 calves reached the criterion for success, after only three tests. The second experiment, carried out with five 2-week-old calves, examined whether the calves can differentiate the familiar rewarder (wearing the same clothing as during the period of familiarisation) from another person (the non-rewarder) wearing clothes of a different colour. The criterion of success was reached by all five calves. The third experiment was carried out with seven 2-week-old calves. It examined whether the calves can differentiate the familiar rewarder and the non-rewarder, when the two people are wearing clothes of the same colour (i.e. the same colour worn by the familiar rewarder during the phase of familiarisation). None of the calves were able to reach the criterion of success within a limited number of four test days. Often, calves would always choose the same arm of the maze. The fourth experiment was carried out on six 1-month-old calves. It was similar to experiment 3 with the difference that the familiar rewarder and the non-rewarder both wore the same colour clothes, but which were not the same colour as worn during the phase of familiarisation. Only one calf achieved the criterion of success within two test days. Results demonstrated that colour cues help very young calves to discriminate between two people, when these people wear different colour clothing. Some calves may be able to use other indicators than the colour of clothing. The Y-maze method is an promising way of examining calves' abilities to recognise people.

Abstract: East African vervet monkeys give short (125 ms), harsh-sounding grunts to each other in a variety of social situations: when approaching a dominant or subordinate member of their group, when moving into a new area of their range, or upon seeing another group. Although all these vocalizations sound similar to humans, field playback experiments have shown that the monkeys distinguish at least four different calls. Acoustic analysis reveals that grunts have an aperiodic F0, at roughly 240 Hz. Most grunts exhibit a spectral peak close to this irregular F0. Grunts may also contain a second, rising or falling frequency peak, between 550 and 900 Hz. The location and changes in these two frequency peaks are the cues most likely to be used by vervets when distinguishing different grunt types.

Abstract: The traditional approach to the study of selective attention in animal discrimination learning has been to ask if animals are capable of the central selective processing of stimuli, such that certain aspects of the discriminative stimuli are partially or wholly ignored while their relationships to each other, or other relevant stimuli, are processed. A notable characteristic of this research has been that procedures involve the acquisition of discriminations, and the issue of concern is whether learning is selectively determined by the stimulus dimension defined by the discriminative stimuli. Although there is support for this kind of selective attention, in many cases, simpler nonattentional accounts are sufficient to explain the results. An alternative approach involves procedures more similar to those used in human information-processing research. When selective attention is studied in humans, it generally involves the steady state performance of tasks for which there is limited time allowed for stimulus input and a relatively large amount of relevant information to be processed; thus, attention must be selective or divided. When this approach is applied to animals and alternative accounts have been ruled out, stronger evidence for selective or divided attention in animals has been found. Similar processes are thought to be involved when animals search more natural environments for targets. Finally, an attempt is made to distinguish these top-down attentional processes from more automatic preattentional processes that have been studied in humans and other animals.

Abstract: Pigeon's observational learning of successive visual discrimination was studied using within-subject comparisons of data from three experimental conditions. Two pairs of discriminative stimuli were used; each bird was exposed to two of the three experimental conditions, with different pairs of stimuli used in a given bird's two conditions. In one condition, observers were exposed to visual discriminative stimuli only. In a second condition, subjects were exposed to a randomly alternating sequence of two stimuli where the one that would subsequently be used as S+ was paired with the operation of the grain magazine. In a third experimental condition, subjects were exposed to the performance of a conspecific in the operant discrimination procedure. After exposures to conspecific performances, there was facilitation of discriminative learning, relative to that which followed exposures to stimulus and reinforcement sequences or exposures to stimulus sequences alone. Exposure to stimulus and food-delivery sequences enhanced performance relative to exposure to stimulus sequences alone. The differential effects of these three types of exposure were not attributable to order effects or to task difficulty; rather, they clearly were due to the type of exposure.