|
Miller, G. (2006). Animal behavior. Signs of empathy seen in mice. Science, 312(5782), 1860–1861.
|
|
|
Pennisi, E. (2006). Animal cognition. Man's best friend(s) reveal the possible roots of social intelligence (Vol. 312).
|
|
|
Pennisi, E. (2006). Animal cognition. Social animals prove their smarts (Vol. 312).
|
|
|
Trillmich, F., & Rehling, A. (2006). Animal Communication: Parent-Offspring. In Keith Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (pp. 284–288). Oxford: Elsevier.
Abstract: Parent-offspring communication has evolved under strong selection to guarantee that the valuable resource of parental care is expended efficiently on raising offspring. To ensure allocation of parental care to their own offspring, individual recognition becomes established in higher vertebrates when the young become mobile at a time when a nest site can no longer provide a safe cue to recognition. Such recognition needs to be established by rapid, sometimes imprinting-like, processes in animals producing precocial offspring. In parents, offering strategies that stimulate feeding and entice offspring to approach the right site have evolved. Such parental signals can be olfactory, acoustic, or visual. In offspring, begging strategies involve shuffling for the best place to obtain food – be this the most productive teat or the best position in the nest. This involves signals that make the offspring particularly obvious to the parent. Parents often feed young according to their signaling intensity but may also show favoritism for weaker offspring. Offspring signals also serve to communicate the continuing presence of the young and may thereby maintain brood-care behavior in parents. Internal processes in parents may end parental care irrespective of further signaling by offspring, thus ensuring that offspring cannot manipulate parents into providing substantially more care than is optimal for their own fitness.
|
|
|
Watanabe, S., & Huber, L. (2006). Animal logics: decisions in the absence of human language. Anim. Cogn., 9(4), 235–245.
Abstract: Without Abstract
|
|
|
Bekoff, M. (2006). Animal Passions And Beastly Virtues: Cognitive Ethology As The Unifying Science For Understanding The Subjective, Emotional, Empathic, And Moral Lives Of Animals. Zygon, 41, 71–104.
|
|
|
Brooks, S. M. (2006). Animal-assisted psychotherapy and equine-fasciliated psychotherapy. In N. B. Webb (Ed.), Psychotherapy and Equine Facilitated Psychotherapy, (pp. 196–217). New York: Guilford Press.
|
|
|
Hubbell, J. A. E., & Muir, W. W. (2006). Antagonism of detomidine sedation in the horse using intravenous tolazoline or atipamezole. Equine Vet J, 38(3), 238–241.
Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: The ability to shorten the duration of sedation would potentially improve safety and utility of detomidine. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of tolazoline and atipamezole after detomidine sedation. HYPOTHESIS: Administration of tolazoline or atipamezole would not affect detomidine sedation. METHODS: In a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, descriptive study, detomidine (0.02 mg/kg bwt i.v.) was administered to 6 mature horses on 4 separate occasions. Twenty-five mins later, each horse received one of 4 treatments: Group 1 saline (0.9% i.v.) as a placebo control; Group 2 atipamezole (0.05 mg/kg bwt i.v.); Group 3 atipamezole (0.1 mg/kg bwt i.v.); and Group 4 tolazoline (4.0 mg/kg bwt i.v.). Sedation, muscle relaxation and ataxia were scored by 3 independent observers at 9 time points. Horses were led through an obstacle course at 7 time points. Course completion time was recorded and the ability of the horse to traverse the course was scored by 3 independent observers. Horses were videotaped before, during and after each trip through the obstacle course. RESULTS: Atipamezole and tolazoline administration incompletely antagonised the effects of detomidine, but the time course to recovery was shortened. CONCLUSIONS AND POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: Single bolus administration of atipamezole or tolazoline produced partial reversal of detomidine sedation and may be useful for minimising detomidine sedation.
|
|
|
Mulcahy, N. J., & Call, J. (2006). Apes save tools for future use. Science, 312(5776), 1038–1040.
Abstract: Planning for future needs, not just current ones, is one of the most formidable human cognitive achievements. Whether this skill is a uniquely human adaptation is a controversial issue. In a study we conducted, bonobos and orangutans selected, transported, and saved appropriate tools above baseline levels to use them 1 hour later (experiment 1). Experiment 2 extended these results to a 14-hour delay between collecting and using the tools. Experiment 3 showed that seeing the apparatus during tool selection was not necessary to succeed. These findings suggest that the precursor skills for planning for the future evolved in great apes before 14 million years ago, when all extant great ape species shared a common ancestor.
|
|
|
Herrmann, E., Melis, A. P., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Apes' use of iconic cues in the object-choice task. Anim. Cogn., 9(2), 118–130.
Abstract: In previous studies great apes have shown little ability to locate hidden food using a physical marker placed by a human directly on the target location. In this study, we hypothesized that the perceptual similarity between an iconic cue and the hidden reward (baited container) would help apes to infer the location of the food. In the first two experiments, we found that if an iconic cue is given in addition to a spatial/indexical cue – e.g., picture or replica of a banana placed on the target location – apes (chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas) as a group performed above chance. However, we also found in two further experiments that when iconic cues were given on their own without spatial/indexical information (iconic cue held up by human with no diagnostic spatial/indexical information), the apes were back to chance performance. Our overall conclusion is that although iconic information helps apes in the process of searching hidden food, the poor performance found in the last two experiments is due to apes' lack of understanding of the informative (cooperative) communicative intention of the experimenter.
|
|