Abstract: I investigated the behavioural background of the way horses learn to follow humans in the “round pen technique” suggested by “horse whisperers” as a gentle method for initial horse training. Though the practicability of this technique has been adequately demonstrated in the past, the horses' behaviour during such training has not yet been documented in detail. In a riding arena, horses, that did not follow the trainer immediately, were chased away so that they galloped around the trainer. Galloping horses showed specific behaviour such as turning the ear to the trainer, chewing, licking, and stretching head and throat downwards. In subsequent trials horses needed to be chased for less time and finally followed immediately, even when conditions were changed or the trainer was replaced by another person. This suggests that horses learn to follow in this particular situation and also show some generalisation. However, following did not occur on a pasture even after several successful trials in the riding arena.

Abstract: Weaning in suckler calves influences performance in a learning task. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether the improved performance after weaning, including relocation, is due to differences in motivation for the reward or in learning abilities. Forty Aubrac calves were used; half of them were weaned from their dams at around eight months, the other half were weaned one month later. After weaning, calves were housed in groups of four in a new setting. From the day after weaning of the last group of calves, the animals were subjected to two tests: (1) an arena test, (2) a T-maze test where one arm led to either a social or a food reward. The T-maze test consisted of three sessions: in Session 1, trials were conducted until the animal acquired the task (i.e. did not take the unrewarded arm on three consecutive trials); in Session 2, the motivation for the reward was assessed via the walking time of the animal to reach the reward; in Session 3, the place of reward was reversed and the animals were trained until they acquired the new task. Calves weaned for one day explored more (P < 0.05) and had lower heart rates during the arena test (P < 0.05) compared to the ones weaned for one month. During the T-maze test, calves weaned for one month versus one day did not differ in their capacities to learn the initial route (Session 1) or in their motivation for either the social or food reward (Session 2). Calves weaned for one day learned significantly faster (P < 0.05) the reversed route (Session 3) than calves weaned for one month. Hence, the better performances at reversal in the T-maze by calves that have just been weaned cannot be accounted for by a higher motivation for the reward. A better cognitive control of their behaviour due to a lower stress state is suggested by our results.

Abstract: The way in which cognitive functioning is affected by stressors is an important area of research for applied ethologists because stress caused by captive conditions may disrupt cognitive processes and lead to welfare and husbandry problems. Such problems may be minimised through an understanding of the links between stress and cognition. The effects of stress on cognitive function have been studied in disciplines ranging from human perceptual psychology to animal neuroscience. The aim of this paper is to provide an introduction to this research, focusing on the effects of stressors on attention, memory formation and memory recall. Findings from such a diverse literature with little apparent inter-disciplinary communication are inevitably complex and often contradictory. Nevertheless, some generalities do emerge. The idea that an inverted U-shaped relationship exists between an individual's state of stress or arousal and its ability to perform a cognitive task effectively, the so-called Yerkes-Dodson law, is commonly encountered. The law has limited explanatory value because it is unlikely that different stressors act on cognitive function via the same intervening, non-specific state. Furthermore, the law only provides a very general description of the relationship between stress and cognitive function. Empirical research on attention and memory processes reveals more specific findings. Stressors appear to cause shifts, lapses and narrowing of attention, and can also influence decision speed. These processes may be viewed as serving an adaptive role helping the animal to search for and scrutinise a source of danger. There is conflicting evidence as to whether hormones involved in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal stress response play a part in these processes. These hormones and those involved in the sympathetic-adrenomedullary stress response do appear to play an important role in memory formation. Low or moderate concentrations of circulating glucocorticoids and catecholamines can enhance memory formation, while excessively high or prolonged elevations of these hormones can lead to memory disruption. The effects of stressors on memory recall are less clear. There is evidence for disruptive effects, and for facilitatory effects indicating state-dependent memory recall; events experienced under conditions of high arousal may be best recalled under similar conditions. Applied ethologists have the opportunity to extend work in this area, which often involves studies of single stressors/stress hormones acting in isolation and limited measures of cognitive function, by focusing on real-life husbandry stressors encountered by captive animals. This will yield fundamental information which also has direct relevance to animal welfare and management issues.

Abstract: Horses are well able to form classical and instrumental associations and so the focus of much recent research has been on the stimulus control of instrumental learning. Horses appear to discriminate using spatial cues more easily than other stimulus features, as indicated both by the speed of initial task acquisition and by the extent to which acquired discriminations can be reversed. Phenomena associated with discrimination learning in laboratory animals, including generalisation and peak shift, have been demonstrated in horses. However, the ability of horses to classify stimuli into categories is more controversial. Although there is some evidence that horses may be able to form categories based on similarities in the physical appearance of different stimuli, there is currently no evidence that they are able to develop abstract concepts. Their performance on social learning tasks has also been poor. Few correlations are observed between the learning ability of individual horses on different tasks, suggesting that it may not be possible to classify individual horses as `good' or `poor' learners. Better learning performance by horses that are naturally calm is probably due to reduced interference in the learning process. Correct handling procedures can lower reactivity levels in horses, and may facilitate learning in some circumstances. Future research on equine learning needs to take into account the complex nature of equine social interaction. Studies on the effects of stress on learning, and on social and spatial cognition, are also particularly needed.

Abstract: Fourteen riding horses of mixed age and breed were randomly allocated to observer and control treatments. An additional horse was pre-trained as a demonstrator to walk the 13.8 m length of the test arena and select one of two food buckets using colour and pattern cues. Observer horses were exposed to correct performances of the task by the trained demonstrator, for 20 trials held over 2 days. Control horses were subjected to the same handling and placement procedures as the observer horses but without exposure to the behaviour of the demonstrator. The third day for all subjects was designated as a test day. Each subject was released individually in a predetermined place in the arena, and the latency to walk the length of the test arena to the food buckets, the latency to feed, the identity of the bucket approached and the identity of the bucket selected were recorded on ten consecutive trials. During tests both food buckets contained food to minimize the possibility of individual trial and error learning. On the first trial the mean latency to approach the goal area was 18 s for observer horses, compared with 119 s for control horses (t = 2.8, d.f. = 12, P < 0.01) and the mean latency to eat was 35 s for observer horses, compared with 181 s for control horses (t = 4.86, d.f. = 11, P < 0.001). However, observer horses were no more likely to choose the demonstrated bucket than control horses on the first trial. Twelve of the 14 horses decreased their latency to approach the goal area during the series of ten trials, but there were no significant changes in the buckets selected.