|
|
McGreevy, P., & Yeates, J. (2018). Horses (Equus caballus). In Companion Animal Care and Welfare. Companion Animal Care and Welfare.
Abstract: Summary Domestic horses are equid members of the class Mammalia, order Perissodactyla, and family Equidae. Horses are obligate herbivores, with nutritional requirements as listed in a table. Adequate space is necessary for exercise, exploration, flight, sharing resources, play, and rolling. Company is essential for all horses, including stallions. Company provides opportunities for mutual grooming and play and allows horses to stand head-to-tail to remove flies. Unhandled horses may respond to humans as they would to predators, whereas handled horses' responses depend on their previous interactions with humans. Horses can suffer from several diseases as listed in another table. The best method of euthanasia of horses is usually sedation followed by either cranial shooting or the injection of an overdose of pentobarbitone into the jugular vein. Behavioural signs of distress can include increased locomotory activity, vigilance behaviours, neighing, snorting, pawing, nibbling walls and buckets, defaecation, rearing, kicking stable walls or doors, and high-stepping 'prancing'.
|
|
|
|
Merkies, K., Isensee, A., MacGregor, H., Koenig von Borstel, U., Tucker, A., Carson. J., et al. (2012). Influence of psychological and physiological arousal in humans on horse heart rate and behaviour. In K. Krueger (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2. International Equine Science Meeting (Vol. in press). Wald: Xenophon Publishing.
Abstract: The interaction of horses with humans is a dynamic state, but it is not clearly understood how horses perceive humans. Nervousness is transmissible from humans to horses indicated by increased horse heart rate (HR), however no studies have investigated whether horses can differentiate between humans who are physiologicallystressed (eg. after exercising) as opposed to psychologically-stressed (eg. feeling nervous/afraid). Horses (N=10) were randomly subjected to each of four treatments: 1) no human [control], 2) a calm human comfortable around horses [CALM; N=2 humans], 3) a physically-stressed human [PHYS; human exercised to reach 70% of maximum HR; N=2 humans], and 4) a psychologically-stressed human [PSYCH; human who was nervous around horses; N=14 humans]. Humans ranked themselves on a scale of 1-10 for their nervousness around horses. Both humans and horses were equipped with a HR monitor. Behavioural observations of the horses [gait, head position relative to the withers, distance from human, orientation toward human] were recorded live. Horses were allowed to wander loose in a round pen for 5 minutes of baseline recordings, at which time the human subject entered the round pen, stood in the centre and placed a blindfold over his/her eyes. The human remained in the centre of the round pen for an additional 5 minutes. Horse HR during control did not differ from when the human was present in the CALM and PSYCH treatment, and was lower during the PHYS treatment (51a vs 54a vs 55a vs 45b bpm for control, CALM, PSYCH and PHYS respectively; a,b differ p<0.0001). Over the 5 minute test period, horse HR decreased in PHYS and PSYCH (p<0.01) whereas it increased in CALM (p<0.0001). Horse HR decreased with increasing human rank of nervousness around horses (p=0.0156), and horses stood nearer to the human when they faced the human (p<0.0001) regardless of treatment. Horses moved at a faster gait in the control treatment, and their gait was slowest in the PSYCH treatment (p<0.0001), and the horse’s head position was lower in the PHYS and PSYCH treatments compared to CALM or baseline (p< 0.0001). A lower horse head position was positively correlated to a lower horse HR (p<0.0001) and negatively correlated to horse age (p<0.0001). Human HR was affected by treatment, with PHYS having the highest HR (p<0.0001). Human HR increased when the horse was facing away from the human, even though the human was blindfolded (p=0.0395). Overall, horses appear to be influenced by the physiological and psychological state of a human without any direct contact. Horses’ posture does reflect their physiological state. Understanding how horses react to human physiological and psychological states is especially important in equine-assisted activities, where the response of the horse has specific implications for the human participant.
|
|
|
|
Proops, L., Grounds, K., Smith, A. V., & McComb, K. (2018). Animals Remember Previous Facial Expressions that Specific Humans Have Exhibited. Current Biology, 28(9), 1428–1432.e4.
Abstract: Summary For humans, facial expressions are important social signals, and how we perceive specific individuals may be influenced by subtle emotional cues that they have given us in past encounters. A wide range of animal species are also capable of discriminating the emotions of others through facial expressions [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], and it is clear that remembering emotional experiences with specific individuals could have clear benefits for social bonding and aggression avoidance when these individuals are encountered again. Although there is evidence that non-human animals are capable of remembering the identity of individuals who have directly harmed them [6, 7], it is not known whether animals can form lasting memories of specific individuals simply by observing subtle emotional expressions that they exhibit on their faces. Here we conducted controlled experiments in which domestic horses were presented with a photograph of an angry or happy human face and several hours later saw the person who had given the expression in a neutral state. Short-term exposure to the facial expression was enough to generate clear differences in subsequent responses to that individual (but not to a different mismatched person), consistent with the past angry expression having been perceived negatively and the happy expression positively. Both humans were blind to the photograph that the horses had seen. Our results provide clear evidence that some non-human animals can effectively eavesdrop on the emotional state cues that humans reveal on a moment-to-moment basis, using their memory of these to guide future interactions with particular individuals.
|
|
|
|
Proops, L., McComb, K., & Reby, D. (2008). Cross-modal individual vocal recognition in the domestic horse. In IESM 2008.
Abstract: Horses fulfill many of the criteria for a species in which it would be adaptive to be capable of individual recognition: they are highly social, form strong and long lasting bonds, their affiliations are rarely kin based, they have a fission-fusion social structure and they possess inter and intra-group dominance hierarchies.
We used a novel cross-modal, expectancy violation paradigm to provide the first systematic evidence that a non-human animal – the domestic horse- is capable of cross modal recognition. We believe this paradigm could provide an ideal way to study individual recognition across a wide range of species.
For full published details see: Proops L, McComb K, Reby D (2009) Cross-modal individual recognition in domestic horses (Equus caballus). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106: 947-951.
|
|
|
|
Proops, L., McComb, K., & Reby, D. (2008). Horse-human interactions: Attention attribution and the use of human cues by domestic horses (Equus caballus). In IESM 2008.
Abstract: Recent research has shown that domestic dogs are particularly good at reading human attentional cues, often outperforming chimpanzees and hand reared wolves [1, 2]. It has been suggested that the close evolutionary relationship between humans and dogs has led to the development of this ability, however very few other species have been studied [3]. We tested the ability of 24 domestic horses to discriminate between an attentive and inattentive person when choosing whom to approach for food. While the attentive person faced forwards, the inattentive person either stood with their body turned 180° away from the subject (body orientation condition), stood with their body facing forwards but their head facing away (head orientation condition) or stood facing forwards but with their eyes closed (eyes closed condition). A fourth, mixed condition was included where the attentive person stood with their body facing away from the subjects but their head turned towards the subject while the inattentive person stood with their body facing the subject but their head turned away. Horses chose the attentive person significantly more often using the body cue (n = 24, k = 19, p = 0.003), the head cue (n = 24, k = 18, p = 0.011), and the eye cue (n = 24, k = 19, p = 0.003) but not the mixed cue (n = 24, k = 13, p = 0.42). In an additional pilot study, horses were tested in an object choice task. A human experimenter cued one of two buckets by either tapping the bucket (tap condition), orienting their body towards the bucket and pointing (body and point condition), pointing while facing forwards (point condition) or orienting their body towards the bucket (body condition). If the subjects chose the correct bucket they were rewarded. Subjects were able to use the tap cue (n = 31, k = 21, p = 0.035), body + point cue (n= 31, k = 21, p = 0.035) and the point cue (n = 30, k = 21, p = 0.021) but not the body cue (n = 31, k = 11, p = 0.076). These results taken together suggest that domestic horses are also very sensitive to human attentional cues, including gaze.
Keywords:
social cognition, animal-human interaction, horses, attention attribution, domestication
1. Hare, B., Brown, M., Williamson, C., and Tomasello, M. (2002). The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science 298, 1634-1636.
2. Gacsi, M., Miklosi, A., Varga, O., Topal, J., and Csanyi, V. (2004). Are readers of our face readers of our minds` Dogs (Canis familiaris) show situation-dependent recognition of human’s attention. Animal Cognition 7, 144-153.
3. Hare, B., and Tomasello, M. (2005). Human-like social skills in dogs? Trends Cogn. Sci. 9, 439-444.
|
|
|
|
Takaoka, A., Maeda, T., Hori, Y., & Fujita, K. (2015). Do dogs follow behavioral cues from an unreliable human? Anim.Cogn., 18(2), 475–483.
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.
|
|
|
|
Takimoto, A., Hori, Y. T., K,, & Fujita, K. (2012). Do horses (Equus caballus) show a preference for a fair person? In K. Krueger (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2. International Equine Science Meeting (Vol. in press). Wald: Xenophon Publishing.
Abstract: It is advantageous to identify individuals who are likely to behave fairly and those who are not. This ability to judge others’ fairness seems important for social species to interact or cooperate with their partners. Domestic horses (Equus caballus) have lived with humans for over five thousand years, hence they might have developed sensitivity to human personality. In the present study, we investigated whether horses would discriminate between a person who behaved fairly and a person who behaved unfairly. Specifically, we asked whether horses show a preference for the former. We tested 12 horses (11 thoroughbred and 1 Anglo-Arabian horses) at the horseback-riding club of Kyoto University. They were divided into 6 pairs which consisted of a participant and a partner. A participant was picketed between two polls next to a partner at the hoof washing place. Each horse put his/her mouth in an actor’s hand when the actor (an unfamiliar person) stood in front of them, and then received food from the actor. A fair actor always behaved fairly and gave a small quantity of hay (low-value food) to both of them in return for the task. An unfair actor always behaved unfairly, giving a small quantity of hay to the participant in return for the task, but always giving a piece of carrot (high-value food) to the partner in return for the task. Both actors always stood in front of the partner first, so the partner always did the task and received food from the actor before the participant. Finally, the participant was offered a piece of carrot by the two actors. The participant indicated which offer was accepted by stretching toward the chosen actor. The latter then moved the hand forward to allow the participant to take the food while the other actor’s hand withdrew. The orders (1st or 2nd) and the positions (left or right) of the two actors varied pseudo-randomly across trials. The color of the clothes of the two actors (white or black) was counterbalanced between sessions. We conducted 8 sessions, consisting of 8 experimental trials, across which the actors maintained their respective roles (fair or unfair) of the fair and unfair person. Furthermore, the two actors switched roles across sessions so that they played both roles the same number of times. One session was run per day. If horses can discriminate between fair and unfair people and show a preference for the former, they should choose the former significantly more often than the latter when both actors offered food. The participants showed no overall preference for accepting food from either actor. However, three of six participants showed a side preference. The result of the present study suggests that horses are insensitive to humans’ fairness. Horses may not have expectations about fair treatment.
|
|
