Abstract: A central question in the interspecific human/animal relationship is how domestic animals perceive humans as a significant element of their environment. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that the use of positive or negative reinforcement in horse training may have consequences on the animals’ perception of humans, as a positive, negative or neutral element. Two groups of ponies were trained to walk backwards in response to a vocal order using either positive or negative reinforcement. Heart rate monitors and behavioural observations were used to assess the animals’ perception of humans on the short (just after training) and long (5 months later) terms. The results showed that the type of reinforcement had a major effect on the subsequent animals’ perception of familiar and unfamiliar humans. Negative reinforcement was rapidly associated with an increased emotional state, as revealed by heart rate measurements and behavioural observations (head movements and ears laid back position). Its use led the ponies to seek less contact with humans. On the contrary, ponies trained with positive reinforcement showed an increased interest in humans and sought contact after training. This is especially remarkable as it was reached in a maximum of 5 sessions of 1 to 3 min (i.e. 5 to 15 min) and had lasting effects (visible after 5 months). Even learning was positively influenced by positive reinforcement. Overall, horses seem capable of associating humans to particular experiences and display extended long-term memory abilities.

Abstract: From the viewpoint of experimental psychology, there are two problems with our current knowledge of equine perception. The first is that the behavioral and neurophysiological research in this area has enormous gaps, reflecting that this animal is not a convenient laboratory subject. The second is that the horse, having been a close companion to humans for many millennia, entrenched anecdotal wisdom is often hard to separate from scientific fact. Therefore, any summary at present of equine perception has to be provisional. The horse appears to have developed a visual system particularly sensitive to dim light and movement, it may or may not have a weak form of color vision in part of the retina, it has little binocular overlap, and its best acuity is limited to a restricted horizontal band which is aimed primarily by head/neck movements. However, the total field of view is very large. Overall, as would be expected for a prey animal, horse vision appears to have evolved more for detection of predator approach from any angle than for accurate visual identification of stationary objects, especially those seen at a distance. It is likely that, as for most mammals except the primates, horses rely more heavily on their other senses for forming a view of their world. Equine high-frequency hearing extends far above that of humans, but horses may be less able to localize the point of origin of brief sounds. The horse's capacity for chemoreception and its reliance on chemical information for identification may more closely resemble that of the dog than of the human. Its tactile sensitivity is high, and the ability of its brain and body to regulate pain perception appears to be similar to that found in other mammals. There is room for a great deal of future research in both the area of equine perception and sensory-based cognition, but for the present time persons interacting with this animal should be made aware of the importance of the sounds they make, the movements of their bodies, the way they touch the animal, and the odors they emit or carry on their clothing.

Abstract: Single-trial learning and long-term memory of “what” and “who” information were examined in an adult gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla). We presented the gorilla with a to-be-remembered food item at the time of study. In Experiment 1, following a retention interval of either approximately 7 min or 24 h, the gorilla responded with one of five cards, each corresponding to a particular food. The gorilla was accurate on 70% of the short retention-interval trials and on 82% of the long retention-interval trials. In Experiment 2, the food stimulus was provided by one of two experimenters, each of whom was represented by a card. The gorilla identified the food (55% of the time) and the experimenter (82% of the time) on the short retention-interval trials. On the long retention-interval trials, the gorilla was accurate for the food (73%) and for the person (87%). The results are interpreted in light of theories of episodic memory.

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: In animal communication natural selection favors callers who vocalize to affect the behavior of listeners and listeners who acquire information from vocalizations, using this information to represent their environment. The acquisition of information in the wild is similar to the learning that occurs in laboratory conditioning experiments. It also has some parallels with language. The dichotomous view that animal signals must be either referential or emotional is false, because they can easily be both: The mechanisms that cause a signaler to vocalize do not limit a listener's ability to extract information from the call. The inability of most animals to recognize the mental states of others distinguishes animal communication most clearly from human language. Whereas signalers may vocalize to change a listener's behavior, they do not call to inform others. Listeners acquire information from signalers who do not, in the human sense, intend to provide it.