Shettleworth, S. J. (2001). Animal cognition and animal behaviour. Anim. Behav., 61(2), 277–286.
Abstract: Cognitive processes such as perception, learning, memory and decision making play an important role in mate choice, foraging and many other behaviours. In this review, I summarize a few key ideas about animal cognition developed in a recent book (Shettleworth 1998, Cognition, Evolution and Behaviour) and briefly review some areas in which interdisciplinary research on animal cognition is currently proving especially productive. Cognition, broadly defined, includes all ways in which animals take in information through the senses, process, retain and decide to act on it. Studying animal cognition does not entail any particular position on whether or to what degree animals are conscious. Neither does it entail rejecting behaviourism in that one of the greatest challenges in studing animal cognition is to formulate clear behavioural criteria for inferring specific mental processes. Tests of whether or not apparently goal-directed behaviour is controlled by a representation of its goal, episodic-like memory in birds, and deceptive behaviour in monkeys provide examples. Functional modelling has been integrated with analyses of cognitive mechanisms in a number of areas, including studies of communication, models of how predator learning and attention affect the evolution of conspicuous and cryptic prey, tests of the relationship betweeen ecological demands on spatial cognition and brain evolution, and in research on social learning. Rather than a `new field' of cognitive ecology, such interdisciplinary research on animal cognition exemplifies a revival of interest in proximate mechanisms of behaviour.
|
Slotnick, B. (2001). Animal cognition and the rat olfactory system. Trends Cogn Sci, 5(5), 216–222.
Abstract: Is smell a 'primitive' sense used primarily to guide biologically basic behaviors or might it be the sensory modality that allows some species to express complex learning and other forms of cognitive behavior? Historically, the olfactory system has been considered primitive and it is not surprising that, until recently, cognitive neuroscientists have ignored odor-guided behavior. However, we now know that the olfactory system has projections to the prefrontal cortex, entorhinal cortex and hippocampus, and that these connections support the acquisition of simple and higher-order instrumental tasks, as well as a robust memory for odors. It appears that animals with a well-developed sense of smell have the neural machinery to think with their noses.
|
Wynne C. D. L. (2001). Animal Cognition: The Mental Lives of Animals. Palgrave.
Abstract: Covering a wide range of key topics, from reasoning and communication to sensation and complex problem-solving, this engagingly-written text presents a comprehensive survey of contemporary research on animal cognition. Written for anyone with an interest in animal cognition, but without a background in animal behaviour, it endeavours to explain what makes animals tick.
With numerous illustrations and including exciting recent studies from many little-studied species (such as the weakly electric African fish), this text is ideal for psychology students who are interested in how much of our human cognition is shared by other species, for students of biology who want to know how complex animal behaviour can get, and for all those with an interest in the animal mind.
|
|
Kirkwood, J. K., & Hubrecht, R. (2001). Animal Consciousness, Cognition and Welfare. Animal Welfare, 10, 5–17.
|
|
Hampton, R. R. (2001). Animal Minds: Beyond Cognition to Consciousness. Ethology, 107, 1055–1056.
|
|
Griffin, D. R. (2001). Animals know more than we used to think (Vol. 98).
|
|
Lea, S. E. G. (2001). Anticipation and Memory as Criteria for Special Welfare Consideration. Animal Welfare, 10, 195–208.
|
|
Seralini G.-E., & Moslemi S. (2001). Aromatase inhibitors: past, present and future. Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, 178, 117–131.
|
Miller, R. M. (2001). Behavior and misbehavior of the horse. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract, 17(2), 379–87, ix.
Abstract: For decades after the discipline of psychiatry had been established as an accepted specialty, many medical schools continued to fail to train their students in the fundamentals of this discipline. Medical students all have at least cursory exposure to psychiatric principles and basic psychology. Unfortunately, the veterinary profession has lagged behind human medicine in this regard. Until recently, veterinary students received no training in animal behavior, and there were no available residencies within our schools for developing board-certified behavioral specialists.
|
Goddard, P. J., Summers, R. W., Macdonald, A. J., Murray, C., & Fawcett, A. R. (2001). Behavioural responses of red deer to fences of five different designs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 73(4), 289–298.
Abstract: Capercaillie, a large species of grouse, are sometimes killed when they fly into high-tensile deer fences. A fence design which is lower or has a less rigid top section than conventional designs would reduce bird deaths, but such fences would still have to be deer-proof. The short-term behavioural responses of farmed red deer (Cervus elaphus) to fences of five designs, including four that were designed to be less damaging to capercaillie, were measured. Five deer were located on one side of a fence with a larger group (20 animals), from which they had been recently separated, on the other. The efficacy of fences in preventing deer from the small group from rejoining the larger group was also recorded. In addition to a conventional deer fence (C) the four new designs were, an inverted “L” shape (L), a fence with offset electric wire (E), a double fence (D) and a fence with four webbing tapes above (W). Four replicate groups of deer were each tested for 3 days with each fence design. Deer paced the test fence line relatively frequently (a proportion of 0.09 scan observations overall) but significantly less when deer were separated by fences E or C compared to L, W or D (overall difference between fence types, P<0.001). Deer separated by fence E spent significantly more time pacing perimeter fences than deer separated by fences of other types (overall difference between fence types, P<0.01) but deer separated by fence C maintained a low level of fence pacing overall. Analysis of behaviour patterns across the first day and the 3 days of exposure suggested that the novelty of the test fences, rather than the designs per se, influenced the behaviour of the deer. Over the course of the study, no deer crossed either C or L. Three deer crossed E and two deer crossed both W and D. On this basis, field testing, particularly of fence L, would be a useful next step.
|
