| Home | << 1 2 >> |
|
Hampton, R. R. (2001). Rhesus monkeys know when they remember. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 98(9), 5359–5362.
Abstract: Humans are consciously aware of some memories and can make verbal reports about these memories. Other memories cannot be brought to consciousness, even though they influence behavior. This conspicuous difference in access to memories is central in taxonomies of human memory systems but has been difficult to document in animal studies, suggesting that some forms of memory may be unique to humans. Here I show that rhesus macaque monkeys can report the presence or absence of memory. Although it is probably impossible to document subjective, conscious properties of memory in nonverbal animals, this result objectively demonstrates an important functional parallel with human conscious memory. Animals able to discern the presence and absence of memory should improve accuracy if allowed to decline memory tests when they have forgotten, and should decline tests most frequently when memory is attenuated experimentally. One of two monkeys examined unequivocally met these criteria under all test conditions, whereas the second monkey met them in all but one case. Probe tests were used to rule out “cueing” by a wide variety of environmental and behavioral stimuli, leaving detection of the absence of memory per se as the most likely mechanism underlying the monkeys' abilities to selectively decline memory tests when they had forgotten.
|
|
Houpt, K. A., Zahorik, D. M., & Swartzman-Andert, J. A. (1990). Taste aversion learning in horses. J. Anim Sci., 68(8), 2340–2344.
Abstract: The ability of ponies to learn to avoid a relatively novel food associated with illness was tested in three situations: when illness occurred immediately after consuming a feed; when illness occurred 30 min after consuming a feed; and when illness was contingent upon eating one of three feeds offered simultaneously. Apomorphine was used to produce illness. The feeds associated with illness were corn, alfalfa pellets, sweet feed and a complete pelleted feed. The ponies learned to avoid all the fees except the complete feed when apomorphine injection immediately followed consumption of the feed. However, the ponies did not learn to avoid a feed if apomorphine was delayed 30 min after feed consumption. They could learn to avoid alfalfa pellets, but not corn, when these feeds were presented with the familiar “safe foods,” oats and soybean meal. Ponies apparently are able to learn a taste aversion, but there were constraints on this learning ability. Under the conditions of this study, they did not learn to avoid a food that made them sick long after consumption of the food, and they had more difficulty learning to avoid highly palatable feeds.
|
|
Ralston, S. L. (1984). Controls of feeding in horses. J. Anim Sci., 59(5), 1354–1361.
Abstract: Members of the genus Equus are large, nonruminant herbivores. These animals utilize the products of both enzymatic digestion in the small intestine and bacterial fermentation (volatile fatty acids) in the cecum and large colon as sources of metabolizable energy. Equine animals rely primarily upon oropharyngeal and external stimuli to control the size and duration of an isolated meal. Meal frequency, however, is regulated by stimuli generated by the presence and (or) absorption of nutrients (sugars, fatty acids, protein) in both the large and small intestine plus metabolic cues reflecting body energy stores. The control of feeding in this species reflects its evolutionary development in an environment which selected for consumption of small, frequent meals of a variety of forages.
|
|
Brosnan, S. F., Freeman, C., & De Waal, F. B. M. (2006). Partner's behavior, not reward distribution, determines success in an unequal cooperative task in capuchin monkeys. Am. J. Primatol., 68(7), 713–724.
Abstract: It was recently demonstrated that capuchin monkeys notice and respond to distributional inequity, a trait that has been proposed to support the evolution of cooperation in the human species. However, it is unknown how capuchins react to inequitable rewards in an unrestricted cooperative paradigm in which they may freely choose both whether to participate and, within the bounds of their partner's behavior, which reward they will receive for their participation. We tested capuchin monkeys with such a design, using a cooperative barpull, which has been used with great success in the past. Contrary to our expectations, the equity of the reward distribution did not affect success or pulling behavior. However, the behavior of the partner in an unequal situation did affect overall success rates: pairs that had a tendency to alternate which individual received the higher-value food in unequal reward situations were more than twice as successful in obtaining rewards than pairs in which one individual dominated the higher-value food. This ability to equitably distribute rewards in inherently biased cooperative situations has profound implications for activities such as group hunts, in which multiple individuals work together for a single, monopolizable reward.
|
|
de Waal, F. B. (1997). Food transfers through mesh in brown capuchins. J Comp Psychol, 111(4), 370–378.
Abstract: Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) share food even if their partner is behind a mesh restraint. Pairs of adult capuchins were moved into a test chamber in which 1 monkey received cucumber pieces for 20 min and the other received apple slices during the following 20 min. Tolerant transfers of food occurred reciprocally among females: The rate of transfer from Female B to A in the second test phase varied with the rate from Female A to B in the first test phase. Several social mechanisms may explain this reciprocity. Whereas this study does not contradict cognitively complex explanations (e.g., mental record keeping of given and received food), the results are consistent with a rather simple explanation: that food sharing reflects a combination of affiliative tendency and high tolerance. The study suggests that sharing mechanisms may be different for adult male capuchins, with males sharing food more readily and less discriminatingly than females.
|
|
Brosnan, S. F., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2004). A concept of value during experimental exchange in brown capuchin monkeys, Cebus apella. Folia Primatol (Basel), 75(5), 317–330.
Abstract: We evaluated the response of brown capuchin monkeys to two differentially valued tokens in an experimental exchange situation akin to a simple barter. Monkeys were given a series of three tests to evaluate their ability to associate tokens with food, then their responses were examined in a barter situation in which tokens were either limited or unlimited. Capuchins did not perform barter in the typical sense, returning the tokens which were associated with the reward. However, females, but not males, showed a different response, preferring the higher-value token. This may indicate that they learned to prefer one token over the other rather than to associate the tokens with their specific rewards. This sex difference parallels previous findings of greater reciprocity in female brown capuchins than in males.
|
|
Reid, P. J., & Shettleworth, S. J. (1992). Detection of cryptic prey: search image or search rate? J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 18(3), 273–286.
Abstract: Animals' improvement in capturing cryptic prey with experience has long been attributed to a perceptual mechanism, the specific search image. Detection could also be improved by adjusting rate of search. In a series of studies using both naturalistic and operant search tasks, pigeons searched for wheat, dyed to produce 1 conspicuous and 2 equally cryptic prey types. Contrary to the predictions of the search-rate hypothesis, pigeons given a choice between the 2 cryptic types took the type experienced most recently. However, experience with 1 cryptic type improved accuracy on the other cryptic type, a result inconsistent with a search image specific to 1 prey type. Search image may better be thought of as priming of attention to those features of the prey type that best distinguish the prey from the background.
|
|
Jackson, R. R., & Li, D. (2004). One-encounter search-image formation by araneophagic spiders. Anim. Cogn., 7(4), 247–254.
Abstract: An experimental study of search-image use by araneophagic jumping spiders (i.e., salticid spiders that prey routinely on other spiders) supports five conclusions. First, araneophagic salticids have an innate predisposition to form search images for specific prey from their preferred prey category (spiders) rather than for prey from a non-preferred category (insects). Second, single encounters are sufficient for forming search images. Third, search images are based on selective attention specifically to optical cues. Fourth, there are trade-offs in attention during search-image use (i.e., forming a search image for one type of spider diminishes the araneophagic salticid's attention to other spiders). Fifth, the araneophagic salticid's adoption of search images is costly to the prey (i.e., when the araneophagic salticid adopts a search, the prey's prospects for surviving encounters with the araneophagic salticid are diminished). Cognitive and ecological implications of search-image use are discussed.
|
|
Shettleworth, S. J., & Plowright, C. M. (1992). How pigeons estimate rates of prey encounter. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 18(3), 219–235.
Abstract: Pigeons were trained on operant schedules simulating successive encounters with prey items. When items were encountered on variable-interval schedules, birds were more likely to accept a poor item (long delay to food) the longer they had just searched, as if they were averaging prey density over a short memory window (Experiment 1). Responding as if the immediate future would be like the immediate past was reversed when a short search predicted a long search next time (Experiment 2). Experience with different degrees of environmental predictability appeared to change the length of the memory window (Experiment 3). The results may reflect linear waiting (Higa, Wynne, & Staddon, 1991), but they differ in some respects. The findings have implications for possible mechanisms of adjusting behavior to current reinforcement conditions.
|
|
Shettleworth, S. J. (1985). Foraging, memory, and constraints on learning. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 443, 216–226.
|