|
|
da Costa, A. P., Leigh, A. E., Man, M. - S., & Kendrick, K. M. (2004). Face pictures reduce behavioural, autonomic, endocrine and neural indices of stress and fear in sheep. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B., 271(1552), 2077–2084.
Abstract: Faces are highly emotive stimuli and we find smiling or familiar faces both attractive and comforting, even as young babies. Do other species with sophisticated face recognition skills, such as sheep, also respond to the emotional significance of familiar faces? We report that when sheep experience social isolation, the sight of familiar sheep face pictures compared with those of goats or inverted triangles significantly reduces behavioural (activity and protest vocalizations), autonomic (heart rate) and endocrine (cortisol and adrenaline) indices of stress. They also increase mRNA expression of activity–dependent genes (c–fos and zif/268) in brain regions specialized for processing faces (temporal and medial frontal cortices and basolateral amygdala) and for emotional control (orbitofrontal and cingulate cortex), and reduce their expression in regions associated with stress responses (hypothalamic paraventricular nucleus) and fear (central and lateral amygdala). Effects on face recognition, emotional control and fear centres are restricted to the right brain hemisphere. Results provide evidence that face pictures may be useful for relieving stress caused by unavoidable social isolation in sheep, and possibly other animal species, including humans. The finding that sheep, like humans, appear to have a right brain hemisphere involvement in the control of negative emotional experiences also suggests that functional lateralization of brain emotion systems may be a general feature in mammals.
|
|
|
|
Dugatkin, L. A. (1998). Breaking up fights between others: a model of intervention behaviour. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 265(1394), 433–437.
Abstract: To examine when and why animals break up fights between others in their group, I modelled whether ‘winner’ and ‘loser’ effects might be one element driving the evolution of intervention behaviour. I considered one particular type of intervention: when the intervener simply breaks up fights between two others, but does not favour either party in so doing. When victories at time T + 1 are more likely given a victory at time T (i.e. winner effects), intervention is often favoured. Intervention is favoured in these circumstances because the intervening party in essence stops others from ‘getting on a roll’ and climbing up any hierarchy that exists. However, when loser effects alone are at work (defeats at time T + 1 are more likely given a defeat at time T), breaking up fights between others is never selected. If both winner and loser effects are operating simultaneously, then the likelihood of intervention behaviour evolving is a function of the relative strength of these two effects. The greater the winner effect relative to the loser effect, the more likely intervention behaviour is to evolve.
|
|
|
|
Garamszegi, L. Z., Møller, A. P., & Erritzøe, J. (2002). Coevolving avian eye size and brain size in relation to prey capture and nocturnality. Proc Roy Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 269(1494), 961–967.
Abstract: Behavioural adaptation to ecological conditions can lead to brain size evolution. Structures involved in behavioural visual information processing are expected to coevolve with enlargement of the brain. Because birds are mainly vision–oriented animals, we tested the predictions that adaptation to different foraging constraints can result in eye size evolution, and that species with large eyes have evolved large brains to cope with the increased amount of visual input. Using a comparative approach, we investigated the relationship between eye size and brain size, and the effect of prey capture technique and nocturnality on these traits. After controlling for allometric effects, there was a significant, positive correlation between relative brain size and relative eye size. Variation in relative eye and brain size were significantly and positively related to prey capture technique and nocturnality when a potentially confounding variable, aquatic feeding, was controlled statistically in multiple regression of independent linear contrasts. Applying a less robust, brunching approach, these patterns also emerged, with the exception that relative brain size did not vary with prey capture technique. Our findings suggest that relative eye size and brain size have coevolved in birds in response to nocturnal activity and, at least partly, to capture of mobile prey.
|
|
|
|
Ghirlanda, S., & Vallortigara, G. (2004). The evolution of brain lateralization: a game-theoretical analysis of population structure. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 271(1541), 853–857.
Abstract: In recent years, it has become apparent that behavioural and brain lateralization at the population level is the rule rather than the exception among vertebrates. The study of these phenomena has so far been the province of neurology and neuropsychology. Here, we show how such research can be integrated with evolutionary biology to understand lateralization more fully. In particular, we address the fact that, within a species, left– and right–type individuals often occur in proportions different from one–half (e.g. hand use in humans). The traditional explanations offered for lateralization of brain function (that it may avoid unnecessary duplication of neural circuitry and reduce interference between functions) cannot account for this fact, because increased individual efficiency is unrelated to the alignment of lateralization at the population level. A further puzzle is that such an alignment may even be disadvantageous, as it makes individual behaviour more predictable to other organisms. Here, we show that alignment of the direction of behavioural asymmetries in a population can arise as an evolutionarily stable strategy when individual asymmetrical organisms must coordinate their behaviour with that of other asymmetrical organisms. Brain and behavioural lateralization, as we know it in humans and other vertebrates, may have evolved under basically ‘social’ selection pressures.
|
|
