Abstract: Domestic animals are highly capable of detecting human cues, while wild relatives tend to perform less well (e.g. responding to pointing gestures). It is suggested that domestication may have led to the development of such cognitive skills. Here, we hypothesized that because domestic animals are so attentive and dependant to humans' actions for resources, the counter effect may be a decline of self sufficiency, such as individual task solving. Here we show a negative correlation between the performance in a learning task (opening a chest) and the interest shown by horses towards humans, despite high motivation expressed by investigative behaviours directed at the chest. If human-directed attention reflects the development of particular skills in domestic animals, this is to our knowledge the first study highlighting a link between human-directed behaviours and impaired individual solving task skills (ability to solve a task by themselves) in horses.

Abstract: Background The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention. Methodology/Principal Findings We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. Conclusions Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.

Abstract: By definition, punishment makes a response less likely in the future. Because horses are largely trained by negative reinforcement, they are susceptible to inadvertent punishment. Delays in the release of pressure can make desirable responses less likely and thus punish them. This study examines the correct use of negative reinforcement and identifies a continuum between poorly timed negative reinforcement and punishment. It explores some of the problems of non-contingent punishment and the prospect of learned helplessness and experimental neurosis. It concludes by introducing the concept of ethical equitation.

Abstract: Sensory lateralization in dogs (n = 74) was investigated in this study using our innovation, the Sensory Jump Test. This required the modification of head halters to create three different ocular treatments (binocular, right, and left monocular vision) for eye preference assessment in a jumping task. Ten jumps were recorded as a jump set for each treatment. Measurements recorded included (i) launch and landing paws, (ii) type of jump, (iii) approach distance, (iv) clearance height of the forepaw, hindpaw, and the lowest part of the body to clear the jump, and (v) whether the jump was successful. Factors significantly associated with these jump outcomes included ocular treatment, jump set number, and replication number. Most notably, in the first jump set, findings indicated a left hemispheric dominance for the initial navigation of the Sensory Jump Test, as left monocular vision (LMV) compromised of jumping more than right monocular (RMV) and binocular vision, with a significantly reduced approach distance and forepaw clearance observed in dogs with LMV. However, by the third jump set, dogs undergoing LMV launched from a greater approach distance and with a higher clearance height, corresponding to an increase in success rate of the jump, in comparison with RMV and binocular vision dogs. A marginally non-significant RMV bias was observed for eye preference based on the laterality indices for approach distance (P = 0.060) and lowest body part clearance height (P = 0.067). A comparison between eye preference and launching or landing paws showed no association between these measures of sensory and motor laterality. To our knowledge, this is the first study to report on sensory lateralization in the dog, and furthermore, to compare both motor and sensory laterality in dogs.