From Freedom to Captivity

Hediger, H.

doi:10.1016/b978-1-4832-0111-5.50008-2

Cited by 19 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We suggest two possible explanations as to why free-ranging dogs were less persistent than pet dogs and WSC dogs: 1) free-ranging dogs may be less willing to persist in a difficult task than pet dogs and WSC dogs to conserve energy [70]; 2) experiential factors differing between groups may have influenced subjects’ persistence in the task, e.g., different training experiences with objects–both the WSC dogs and pet dogs are encouraged by the trainers/owners to interact with objects in certain situations (i.e. experiments, dog toys).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of life experience in affecting persistence: A comparative study between free-ranging dogs, pet dogs and captive pack dogs

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Persistence in object manipulation has been consistently associated with problem-solving success and it is known to be affected, at the individual level, by life experience. Differences in life experiences are particularly poorly studied in the problem-solving context and mainly refer to the comparison between wild and captive animals. Dogs represent interesting study subjects, since dog populations differ widely in their life experiences. In this comparative study we investigated subjects' persistence when presenting a novel object containing food that could not be accessed (impossible task) to three dog populations with very diverse life experiences: free-ranging village dogs (in Morocco), pet dogs (in Vienna) and captive pack living dogs (Wolf Science Center-WSC). We found that pet dogs and captive dogs (WSC) were more manipulative and persistent than free-ranging dogs. The low persistence of free ranging-dogs is unlikely the effect of a lack of exposure to objects, since they are confronted with many human’ artefacts in their environment daily. Instead, we suggest that the higher persistence of captive dogs and pet dogs in comparison to free-ranging dogs might be due to their increased experience of human-mediated object interaction. This provides subjects with a socially guided experience in manipulating and interacting with objects increasing their motivation to engage in such tasks.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of life experience in affecting persistence: A comparative study between free-ranging dogs, pet dogs and captive pack dogs

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Somatotopic maps may represent not just the body itself, but also objects in the space nearby; they can be extended to include a tool (see below) and also can represent the body of another (see Section Interacting Neural Representations of Space and Self). Personal space is a similar notion which arose from social anthropology (Hall, 1963 ) and animal behavior (Hediger, 1950 , 1955 ) and is usually defined as the space around the body which feels discomfort when it in entered into by another (Hayduk, 1978 ). Peripersonal space is space on and near the body the body for which there is corresponding activity of neurons that represent its coordinates (Rizzolatti et al, 1981 ).…”

Section: Social and Spatial Cognitive Neurosciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Where am I? Who am I? The Relation Between Spatial Cognition, Social Cognition and Individual Differences in the Built Environment

Proulx

Todorov²,

Aiken

et al. 2016

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowing who we are, and where we are, are two fundamental aspects of our physical and mental experience. Although the domains of spatial and social cognition are often studied independently, a few recent areas of scholarship have explored the interactions of place and self. This fits in with increasing evidence for embodied theories of cognition, where mental processes are grounded in action and perception. Who we are might be integrated with where we are, and impact how we move through space. Individuals vary in personality, navigational strategies, and numerous cognitive and social competencies. Here we review the relation between social and spatial spheres of existence in the realms of philosophical considerations, neural and psychological representations, and evolutionary context, and how we might use the built environment to suit who we are, or how it creates who we are. In particular we investigate how two spatial reference frames, egocentric and allocentric, might transcend into the social realm. We then speculate on how environments may interact with spatial cognition. Finally, we suggest how a framework encompassing spatial and social cognition might be taken in consideration by architects and urban planners.

show abstract

“…The physical space or enclosure in which an animal lives is a universally important aspect of animal welfare (Hediger, 1950 ; Hancocks, 2001 ). This includes aspects of the structural design itself as well as components of enrichment that may be permanent or periodically included or removed.…”

Section: Exhibit Design and Enrichmentmentioning

confidence: 99%