Abstract: The complex housing environment and the close contact between humans and horses in equine sports place high demands on the learning capacity of horses. To date only limited information is available on the learning ability of the horse including higher order cognition. A type of higher order cognition is to perceive and discriminate quantities. Several mammals and birds have shown to be capable of discriminating objects due to their quantity (Brannon and Roitman, 2003). With regard to horses, there are only few studies available concerning their numerosity judgment (Uller and Lewis, 2009) and this ability is discussed controversially (Henselek et al, 2012). Possibly, the legacy of ‘‘Clever Hans’’ overshadowed further research on numerical capacity in horses, a horse to whom several psychologists incorrectly attributed the capacity of symbolic calculation (Pfungst, 1907; Rosenthal, 1965). In the present study we wanted to show whether Shetland ponies are able to transfer a previously learned concept of sameness to a numerosity judgment. The base of the test design was a “matching to sample” task, where the ponies had learned to relate abstract symbols to another which were presented on a LCD screen. Three Shetland ponies, which previously solved the matching to sample task, were tested in two test phases. In the first test phase different quantities of dots were presented (1 vs. 2; 2 vs. 3; 3 vs. 4; 4 vs. 5). To exclude discrimination due to the shape of the stimuli, the dots were varied in size and arrangement. The stimuli were presented in a triangular arrangement on the LCD screen; the sample stimulus was presented in the middle above and the discrimination stimuli in the two lower corners (S+ and S-). The pony received a food reward, by choosing the positive stimulus (S+). When the negative stimulus (S-) was chosen, the pony entered the next trial. Each learning session consisted of 20 decision trials. To investigate whether the numerosity judgment was transferable to mixed geometrical symbols (tri-, rectangle, rhomb, dot and cross) a second test phase was designed. All of the three Shetland ponies met the learning criterion of the first test phase (80% correct responses in two consecutive sessions) within the first eight sessions. One pony could transfer all judgments to the mixed symbols (up to 4 vs. 5), another pony up to 3 vs. 5 and the third on the level 2 vs. 3. These are the first reported findings that ponies are able to discriminate up to five objects. The numerosity judgment seemed to be easier for the ponies when homogenous objects were presented, than in the case of heterogeneous symbols. The reaction of the ponies occurred within few seconds, suggesting that the animals used subitizing for their numerosity judgment.
Keywords:
Cognition, numerical capacity, numerosity judgment, Shetland ponys
References:
Brannon E, Roitman J (2003) Nonverbal representations of time and number in animals and human infants. In: Meck WH (ed) Functional and neural mechanisms of interval timing. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 143–182
Henselek Y, Fischer J, Schloegl C (2012) Does the stimulus type influence horses’ performance in a quantity discrimination task? Front Psychol 3:504
Pfungst O (1907) Der Kluge Hans. Ein Beitrag zur nicht-verbalen Kommunikation. 3rd edn. (reprint of the original 1983) Frankfurter Fachbuchhandlung für Psychologie, Frankfurt
Rosenthal R (1965) Clever Hans: the horse of Mr. Von Osten. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York
Uller C, Lewis J (2009) Horses (Equus caballus) select the greater of two quantities in small numerical sets. Anim Cogn 12:733–738

Abstract: This study replicated an unreported finding observed in a color perception experiment (Pick, Lovell, Brown, & Dail, 1994) where, after using the method of successive approximations to train a blue-gray discrimination, red-gray trials were initiated without further training. Although a gray choice had never been reinforced, the subject chose gray on the first 20 trials (p < .000001). In the study reported here, a horse was trained to approach a red feed bucket and not a green feed bucket. After the subject mastered the discrimination, a blue bucket was substituted for the previously reinforced red bucket. With double-blind controls in place, the subject chose the unreinforced green bucket on 15 out of the first 20 blue-green trials yielding a binomial p = 0.0148 that this outcome could be due to chance alone. These results are contrary to all behavioristic psychological learning theories, but consistent with prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). Prospect theory predicts that given a choice between two previously unreinforced stimuli, one familiar and the other novel, humans will choose the familiar. It is argued that the bias toward the familiar is the basis to a heuristic that has a genetic origin and should exist in other animals on the phylogenetic scale. The results of this study indicate that the heuristic is available at least as far down the scale as the horse. Conceptual replications using shape stimuli and sound stimuli are in progress.

Abstract: Abstract The right brain hemisphere, connected to the left eye, coordinates fight and flight behaviors in a wide variety of vertebrate species. We investigated whether left eye vision predominates in dairy cows’ interactions with other cows and humans, and whether dominance status affects the extent of visual lateralization. Although we found no overall lateralization of eye use to view other cows during interactions, cows that were submissive in an interaction were more likely to use their left eye to view a dominant animal. Both subordinate and older cows were more likely to use their left eye to view other cattle during interactions. Cows that predominantly used their left eye during aggressive interactions were more likely to use their left eye to view a person in unfamiliar clothing in the middle of a track by passing them on the right side. However, a person in familiar clothing was viewed predominantly with the right eye when they passed mainly on the left side. Cows predominantly using their left eyes in cow-to-cow interactions showed more overt responses to restraint in a crush compared with cows who predominantly used their right eyes during interactions (crush scores: left eye users 7.9, right eye users 6.4, standard error of the difference = 0.72). Thus, interactions between 2 cows and between cows and people were visually lateralized, with losing and subordinate cows being more likely to use their left eyes to view winning and dominant cattle and unfamiliar humans.

Abstract: Dogs are known to consistently follow human pointing gestures. In this study, we asked whether dogs “automatically” do this or whether they flexibly adjust their behavior depending upon the reliability of the pointer, demonstrated in an immediately preceding event. We tested pet dogs in a version of the object choice task in which a piece of food was hidden in one of the two containers. In Experiment 1, Phase 1, an experimenter pointed at the baited container; the second container was empty. In Phase 2, after showing the contents of both containers to the dogs, the experimenter pointed at the empty container. In Phase 3, the procedure was exactly as in Phase 1. We compared the dogs’ responses to the experimenter’s pointing gestures in Phases 1 and 3. Most dogs followed pointing in Phase 1, but many fewer did so in Phase 3. In Experiment 2, dogs followed a new experimenter’s pointing in Phase 3 following replication of procedures of Phases 1 and 2 in Experiment 1. This ruled out the possibility that dogs simply lost motivation to participate in the task in later phases. These results suggest that not only dogs are highly skilled at understanding human pointing gestures, but also they make inferences about the reliability of a human who presents cues and consequently modify their behavior flexibly depending on the inference.

Abstract: An important question in the study of animal communication is whether non-human animals are able to produce communicative gestures, i.e. nonvocal bodily actions directed to a recipient, physically ineffective but with a meaning shared in the social group [1]. Passive gestures are instrumental, tuned to the mere presence/absence of others, whereas active informers recognize receivers as communicative agents and activate shared-attention mechanisms for identifying their attentional state (SAM [2]; e.g. Schwab and Huber [3]). Six operational criteria must be evaluated to classify a signal as referential and intentional [4]: (1) alternative gazes between the partner and the target; (2) apparent attention-getting behaviours are deployed; (3) an audience is required to exhibit the behaviour; (4) the attentional status of an observer influences the propensity to exhibit behaviours; (5) communication is persistent and (6) there is elaboration of communicative behaviour when apparent attempts to manipulate the partner fail. Dogs [5] and non-human primates (reviewed in Liebal and Call [6]) can tune a human receiver’s attention to the object of interest by combining directional and attention-getting signals, such as turning the head or body, gazing to the receiver, and/or establishing eye contact. Research on other species is scarce.
Horses rely on humans to survive in domestic settings and may have evolved skills for communicating flexibly with them [7]. Horses understand human attentional cues (such as body and head orientation, eyes opened/closed) [8], permanent pointing [9] and, to some extent, gazing [10]. Here we tested the ability of 14 outdoor, herd-living domestic horses to communicate referentially with a human partner about the location of a desired target, a bucket of food out of reach. After the baiting of two buckets placed in opposite, unreachable locations were shown by the experimenter, the subject would walk to one of the two buckets. Because approaching a bucket would reveal that the food is out of reach, we expected the horse to look back to the experimenter, then to the bucket, and alternate this gazing several times to indicate its intention. To test whether our prediction is correct and alternate gazing is indeed the result of the horse's referential communication, we video-recorded the behaviour of the subjects in the test (FORWARD) and three control conditions: (1) FORWARD: experimenter oriented to the center of the arena, (2) BACK: experimenter backward oriented in respect to the arena, (3) ALONE: experimenter absent, (4) MANY: as FORWARD plus a familiar human oriented to the subject behind the bucket (Figure 1). We used a conservative criterion of back gazing by considering only turning the head back more than 90 degrees. The results confirmed our prediction. The horses alternated gazes between the partner and the buck significantly more often in the FORWARD than in all the other conditions (Table 1), thus satisfying operational criteria #1, #3 and #4. They also alternated head nods with gazes to the partner significantly more often during the FORWARD condition. We thus considered head nods not an instrumental signal of arousal, but an attention-getting behaviour with communicative function. Subjects used both head nods and neck stretched toward the buck more often in the FORWARD than in the BACK and the ALONE conditions, thus satisfying criteria #2, #3 and #4. In condition MANY, the frequency of head nods did not differ from condition FORWARD, probably because nods were directed to the additional partner behind the buck. This also satisfies criteria #4. The horses gazed to the partner most often in the FORWARD than in the BACK and the MANY conditions, but not in the ALONE. In this condition, subjects could observe the partner walking further from the test arena. To test for the different functions of gazes in presence and in absence of the partner, we compared their average duration between the two conditions: the significantly longer duration of gazes when the subject was alone suggests the instrumental monitoring function of gazes in this experimental condition.
Altogether, the findings suggest that domestic horses possess the ability to use referential communication in an interspecific context, but additional analyses are needed to test for operational criteria #5 and #6. Flexible and voluntary use of communicative signals reveal sophisticated cognitive processes involved in the strategic emission of these signals, and the finding of referential communication skills in an ungulate species forces us to reconsider the evolutionary path of intelligence. Furthermore, ungulates are used intensively by humans (transportation, meat, agriculture, leisure activities), and their welfare is often compromised. Determining whether ungulates can communicate their needs and preferences is paramount to a proper ethical management.