|
|
Emery, N. J., Dally, J. M., & Clayton, N. S. (2004). Western scrub-jays ( Aphelocoma californica) use cognitive strategies to protect their caches from thieving conspecifics. Anim. Cogn., 7(1), 37–43.
Abstract: Food caching birds hide food and recover the caches when supplies are less abundant. There is, however, a risk to this strategy because the caches are susceptible to pilfering by others. Corvids use a number of different strategies to reduce possible cache theft. Scrub-jays with previous experience of pilfering other's caches cached worms in two visuospatially distinct caching trays either in private or in the presence of a conspecific. When these storers had cached in private, they subsequently observed both trays out of reach of a conspecific. When these storers had cached in the presence of a conspecific, they subsequently watched the observer pilfering from one of the trays while the other tray was placed in full view, but out of reach. The storers were then allowed to recover the remaining caches 3 h later. Jays cached more worms when they were observed during caching. At the time of recovery, they re-cached more than if they had cached in private, selectively re-caching outside of the trays in sites unbeknown to potential thieves. In addition, after a single pilfering trial, the jays switched their recovery strategy from predominantly checking their caches (i.e. returning to a cache site to see whether the food remained there) to predominantly eating them. Re-caching remained constant across the three trials. These results suggest that scrub-jays use flexible, cognitive caching and recovery strategies to aid in reducing potential future pilfering of caches by conspecifics.
|
|
|
|
Evans, T. A., & Westergaard, G. C. (2004). Discrimination of functionally appropriate and inappropriate throwing tools by captive tufted capuchins (Cebus apella). Anim. Cogn., 7(4), 255–262.
Abstract: A tool-throwing task was used to test whether capuchin monkeys understand the difference between functionally appropriate and functionally inappropriate tools. A group of monkeys was trained to obtain a sticky treat from a container outside their enclosure using a projectile attached to one end of an anchored line. Subsequently, these monkeys were given choice tests between functional and nonfunctional versions of tools used in training. A different feature of the tool was varied between alternatives in each choice test. The monkeys chose to use functional tools significantly more often than nonfunctional tools in early exposures to each choice test. A second experiment tested whether these subjects, as well as a second group of minimally trained participants, could distinguish between functional and nonfunctional tools that appeared different from those used in training. A new set of design features was varied between tools in these choice tests. All participants continued to choose functional tools significantly more often than nonfunctional tools, regardless of their tool-throwing experience or the novel appearance of the tools. These results suggest that capuchin monkeys, like chimpanzees studied in similar experiments, are sensitive to a variety of functionally relevant tool features.
|
|
|
|
Fagot, J., Kruschke, J. K., Dépy, D., & Vauclair, J. (1998). Associative learning in baboons (Papio papio) and humans (Homo sapiens): species differences in learned attention to visual features. Anim. Cogn., 1(2), 123–133.
Abstract: We examined attention shifting in baboons and humans during the learning of visual categories. Within a conditional matching-to-sample task, participants of the two species sequentially learned two two-feature categories which shared a common feature. Results showed that humans encoded both features of the initially learned category, but predominantly only the distinctive feature of the subsequently learned category. Although baboons initially encoded both features of the first category, they ultimately retained only the distinctive features of each category. Empirical data from the two species were analyzed with the 1996 ADIT connectionist model of Kruschke. ADIT fits the baboon data when the attentional shift rate is zero, and the human data when the attentional shift rate is not zero. These empirical and modeling results suggest species differences in learned attention to visual features.
|
|
|
|
Fagot, J., & Tomonaga, M. (2001). Effects of element separation on perceptual grouping by humans (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): perception of Kanizsa illusory figures. Anim. Cogn., 4(3), 171–177.
Abstract: The processing of Kanizsa-square illusory figures was studied in two experiments with four humans and two chimpanzees. Subjects of the two species were initially trained to select a Kanizsa-square illusory figure presented in a computerized two-alternative forced choice task. After training, adding narrow closing segments to the pacman inducers that composed the Kanisza illusory figures lowered performance in both chimpanzees and humans, suggesting that the discrimination could be controlled by the perception of illusory forms. A second experiment assessed transfer of performance with five sets of figures in which the size of the inducers and their separation were manipulated. Only for chimpanzees was performance directly controlled by separation, suggesting that chimpanzees are more sensitive than humans to the separation between visual elements.
|
|
|
|
Fairhurst, S., Gallistel, C. R., & Gibbon, J. (2003). Temporal landmarks: proximity prevails. Anim. Cogn., 6(2), 113–120.
Abstract: Subjects in conditioning experiments time their conditioned responses relative to the onsets of the conditioned stimuli (CSs). These onsets are temporal landmarks, by reference to which subjects may estimate the location of the unconditioned stimulus (US) in time. In a serial compound conditioning paradigm, a long duration CS comes on first, followed later by a second shorter CS, creating both a long-range and a short-range predictor of the US. We ask whether displacing the short-range predictor relative to the long-range predictor causes subjects to strike a compromise between the different temporal locations predicted by the two CSs. In three experiments with pigeons, we varied the training conditions so as to favor or militate against this outcome. However, in all conditions, there was no compromise; after the onset of the displaced short-range CS, the timing of conditioned responding was governed by it alone. This result contrasts with the compromises that are seen when the feeding time predicted by a CS is put in conflict with the time predicted by the circadian clock, and with the similar compromises sometimes seen when a nearby spatial landmark is displaced relative to a larger spatial context.
|
|
|
|
Farmer, K., Krueger, K., & Byrne, R. (2010). Visual laterality in the domestic horse (Equus caballus) interacting with humans. Anim. Cogn., 13, 229–238.
Abstract: Most horses have a side on which they are easier to handle and a direction they favour when working on a circle, and recent studies have suggested a correlation between emotion and visual laterality when horses observe inanimate objects. As such lateralisation could provide important clues regarding the horse’s cognitive processes, we investigated whether horses also show laterality in association with people. We gave horses the choice of entering a chute to left or right, with and without the passive, non-interactive presence of a person unknown to them. The left eye was preferred for scanning under both conditions, but significantly more so when a person was present. Traditionally, riders handle horses only from the left, so we repeated the experiment with horses specifically trained on both sides. Again, there was a consistent preference for left eye scanning in the presence of a person, whether known to the horses or not. We also examined horses interacting with a person, using both traditionally and bilaterally trained horses. Both groups showed left eye preference for viewing the person, regardless of training and test procedure. For those horses tested under both passive and interactive conditions, the left eye was preferred significantly more during interaction. We suggest that most horses prefer to use their left eye for assessment and evaluation, and that there is an emotional aspect to the choice which may be positive or negative, depending on the circumstances. We believe these results have important practical implications and that emotional laterality should be taken into account in training methods.
|
|
|
|
Farmer, K., Krüger, K., Byrne, R. W., & Marr, I. (2018). Sensory laterality in affiliative interactions in domestic horses and ponies (Equus caballus). Anim. Cogn., 21(5), 631–637.
Abstract: Many studies have been carried out into both motor and sensory laterality of horses in agonistic and stressful situations. Here we examine sensory laterality in affiliative interactions within four groups of domestic horses and ponies (N = 31), living in stable social groups, housed at a single complex close to Vienna, Austria, and demonstrate for the first time a significant population preference for the left side in affiliative approaches and interactions. No effects were observed for gender, rank, sociability, phenotype, group, or age. Our results suggest that right hemisphere specialization in horses is not limited to the processing of stressful or agonistic situations, but rather appears to be the norm for processing in all social interactions, as has been demonstrated in other species including chicks and a range of vertebrates. In domestic horses, hemispheric specialization for sensory input appears not to be based on a designation of positive versus negative, but more on the perceived need to respond quickly and appropriately in any given situation.
|
|
|
|
Ferkin, M., Combs, A., delBarco-Trillo, J., Pierce, A., & Franklin, S. (2008). Meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus , have the capacity to recall the “what”, “where”, and “when” of a single past event. Anim. Cogn., 11(1), 147–159.
Abstract: Abstract Some non-human animals may possess the ability to recall the “what”, “where”, and “when” of a single past event. We tested the hypothesis that male meadow voles posses the capacity to recall the “what”, “where”, and “when” of a single past event associated with mate selection in two experiments. Briefly, male voles were allowed to explore an apparatus that contained two chambers. One chamber contained a day-20 pregnant female (24 h prepartum). The other chamber contained a sexually mature female that was neither pregnant nor lactating (REF female). Twenty-four hour after the exposure, the males were placed in the same apparatus, which was empty and clean. At this time, the pregnant female would have entered postpartum estrus (PPE), a period of heightened sexual receptivity. Males initially chose and spent significantly more time investigating the chamber that originally housed the pregnant female (now a PPE female) than the chamber that originally housed the REF female. Male voles also explored an apparatus containing a chamber with a PPE female and one chamber containing a REF female. Twenty-four hour later, males were placed into an empty and clean apparatus. The males did not display an initial choice and they spent similar amounts of time investigating the chamber that originally housed the PPE female (now a lactating female) and the chamber that originally housed the REF female. The results of these and additional experiments suggest that male voles may have the capacity to recall the “what”, “where”, and “when” of a single past event, which may allow males to remember the location of females who would currently be in heightened states of sexual receptivity.
|
|
|
|
Ferkin, M. H., Pierce, A. A., Sealand, R. O., & Delbarco-Trillo, J. (2005). Meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus, can distinguish more over-marks from fewer over-marks. Anim. Cogn., 8(3), 182–189.
Abstract: Is it possible that voles have a sense of number? To address this question, we determined whether voles discriminate between two different scent-marking individuals and identify the individual whose scent marks was on top more often than the other individual. We tested whether voles show a preference for the individual whose scent marks was on top most often. If so, the simplest explanation was that voles can make a relative size judgement-such as distinguishing an area containing more of one individual's over-marks as compared to less of another individual's over-marks. We found that voles respond preferentially to the donor that provided a greater number of over-marks as compared to the donor that provided a lesser number of over-marks. Thus, we concluded that voles might display the capacity for relative numerousness. Interestingly, female voles were better able than male voles to distinguish between small differences in the relative number of over-marks by the two scent donors.
|
|
|
|
Fichtel, C. (2004). Reciprocal recognition of sifaka ( Propithecus verreauxi verreauxi) and redfronted lemur ( Eulemur fulvus rufus) alarm calls. Anim. Cogn., 7(1), 45–52.
Abstract: Redfronted lemurs ( Eulemur fulvus rufus) and Verreaux's sifakas ( Propithecus verreauxi verreauxi) occur sympatrically in western Madagascar. Both species exhibit a so-called mixed alarm call system with functionally referential alarm calls for raptors and general alarm calls for carnivores and raptors. General alarm calls also occur in other contexts associated with high arousal, such as inter-group encounters. Field playback experiments were conducted to investigate whether interspecific recognition of alarm calls occurs in both species, even though the two species rarely interact. In a crossed design, redfronted lemur and sifaka alarm calls were broadcast to individuals of both species, using the alarm call of chacma baboons ( Papio cynocephalus) as a control. Both species responded with appropriate escape strategies and alarm calls after playbacks of heterospecific aerial alarm calls. Similarly, they reacted appropriately to playbacks of heterospecific general alarm calls. Playbacks of baboon alarm calls elicited no specific responses in either lemur species, indicating that an understanding of interspecific alarm calls caused the responses and not alarm calls in general. Thus, the two lemur species have an understanding of each other's aerial as well as general alarm calls, suggesting that even in species that do not form mutualistic associations and rarely interact, common predator pressure has been sufficient for the development of heterospecific call recognition.
|
|
