Abstract: Abstract: Brain lateralization has been the matter of extensive research over the last centuries, but it remains an unsolved issue. While hand preferences have been extensively studied, very few studies have investigated laterality of eye use in non-human primates. We examined eye preference in 14 Campbell"s monkeys (Cercopithecus c. campbelli). We assessed eye preference to look at a seed placed inside a tube using monocular vision. Eye use was recorded for 100 independent and non-rewarded trials per individual. All of the 14 monkeys showed very strong preferences in the choice of the eye used to look inside the tube (mean preference: 97.6%). Eight subjects preferred the right eye and six subjects preferred the left eye. The results are discussed in light of previous data on eye preference in primates, and compared to data on hand preference from these subjects. Our findings would support the hypothesis for an early emergence of lateralization for perceptual processes compared to manual motor functions.

Abstract: The article by Zucca and Sovrano (2008, this issue) represents part of a new wave of studies of lateralization in nonhuman species. This work is often in conflict with earlier studies of human cerebral asymmetry and handedness, and the associated claim that these asymmetries are uniquely human, and perhaps even a result of the “speciation event” that led to modern humans. It is now apparent that there are close parallels between human and nonhuman asymmetries, suggesting that they have ancient roots. I argue that asymmetries must be seen in the context of a bilaterally symmetrical body plan, and that there is a balance to be struck between the adaptive advantages of symmetry and asymmetry. In human evolution, systematic asymmetries were incorporated into activities that probably are unique to our species, but the precursors of these asymmetries are increasingly evident in other species, including frogs, fish, birds, and mammals – especially primates.

Abstract: Bilateral asymmetry in gallop stride limb contact patterns of four Quarter Horse fillies was documented by high-speed cinematography. Horses were filmed with rider by two cameras simultaneously while galloping along a straightaway. Even though signaled for each gallop lead an equivalent number of times, horses frequently switched leads, selecting the left lead nearly twice as often as the right. Velocities and stride lengths were greater for the left lead than the right, but stride frequencies did not differ between leads. Velocity effects were partitioned out in limb contact data analysis to enable the determination of persistent gallop stride asymmetries. The contact duration for the trailing (right) fore limb on the left lead exceeded the contact duration for the trailing (left) fore limb on the right lead. Selecting the right fore limb as the trailing fore limb may have allowed horses to use it to withstand the greater stresses and caused them to preferentially gallop with the left fore limb leading. Laterality may have an important influence on equine gallop motion patterns and thereby influence athletic performance.

Abstract: Despite the abundant empirical evidence on lateralized social behaviours, a clear understanding of the relative roles of two brain hemispheres in social processing is still lacking. This study investigated visual lateralization in social interactions of free-ranging European bison (Bison bonasus). The bison were more likely to display aggressive responses (such as fight and side hit), when they viewed the conspecific with the right visual field, implicating the left brain hemisphere. In contrast, the responses associated with positive social interactions (female-to-calf bonding, calf-to-female approach, suckling) or aggression inhibition (fight termination) occurred more likely when the left visual field was in use, indicating the right hemisphere advantage. The results do not support either assumptions of right-hemisphere dominance for control of various social functions or hypotheses about simple positive (approach) versus negative (withdrawal) distinction between the hemispheric roles. The discrepancy between the studies suggests that in animals, the relative roles of the hemispheres in social processing may be determined by a fine balance of emotions and motivations associated with the particular social reaction difficult to categorize for a human investigator. Our findings highlight the involvement of both brain hemispheres in the control of social behaviour.

Abstract: Animals with eyes placed laterally on their head would respond differently to stimuli detected on their different sides. Visual cues from the left eye are processed in the right hemisphere which controls the intensive emotion expression and fast response to the stimuli, while the left hemisphere receiving the information from the contralateral eye is responsible for the routine behaviour and concentration. Different use of left/right eye for exploring environment and evaluation of different stimuli was recently described in domestic horses. They use left eye predominantly for watching novel object or frightening stimulus which indicates specialization of right hemisphere (RH) for appraisal of these types of stimuli. We presumed such lateralisation also in foals during suckling when only monocular vision can be employed for observing surroundings (foals suck mostly in antiparallel body position). Two mutually exclusive hypotheses about the origin of probable foal’s preference for particular suckling side were postulated: 1) visual lateralization, then the foals should suck more often from the mother’s right side (‘from right’), so as potential danger would be detected by the better adapted right hemisphere (i.e. left eye); 2) motor lateralization (the analogous concept as human “handness”), then a foal should suck predominantly from one side, either left or right, more often. Within two seasons, suckling behaviour of 59 Kladruby mares giving birth to 79 foals was observed from deliveries to abrupt weaning (4-7 months of age). From 10 607 recorded suckling solicitations, 50.2% were performed from right, thus there was no preference of the suckling side on a population level. However, we found large variability in the probability of suckling from right among individual foals (p<0.0001); the probability ranged from 0.22-0.98. One third of the foals (35.4%) showed strong, either right (N=13) or left (N=15) side preference which further strengthened with age (interaction suckling side preference*foal’s age: p<0.0001). Other tested variables, i.e. sex of the foal, age of the mother and identity of the herd were not significant. The probability that the mother rejected foal’s suckling solicitation (N=108) did not differ according to the suckling side (right/left) or suckling side preference (right/left/no preference). Suckling bout duration was not significantly influenced neither by the suckling side nor suckling side preference regardless the mother or the foal terminated the suckling bout. In conclusion, only 16 % of the foals revealed significant right side preference for suckling while 19 % left side and 65 % no preference. Thus, we can reject the visual hypothesis because a general trait to suck with left eye open for better danger detection and recognition is unlikely to occur, at least in up to 7 months old foals. Such a young foal is probably fully focused on suckling and relies on mother’s vigilance. Observed individual side preferences indicated more likely a kind of motor lateralization in part of the foals. Further research is needed to clear up the effects of age and individual experience of the foal. Supported by AWIN, EU FP7 project No. 266213.