Horses Failed to Learn from Humans by Observation

Rørvang, Maria Vilain; Nielsen, Tina Bach; Christensen, Janne Winther

doi:10.3390/ani10020221

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding is in line with previous studies where horses were faced with different tasks (e.g. when trying to get hay from triple tier hay nests (46), solving an operant task: (37), and during locomotion (47)) and also expressed behavior indicative of frustration. Although we were not able to disentangle cause and effect with our setup, this increased frustration/arousal could have potentially led to a negative feedback loop that might hamper subject's performance in subsequent trials of the task.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Horses’ (Equus caballus) performance in visible and invisible displacement tasks is expressed in frustration behavior and heart rate

Rørvang¹,

Ničová²,

Sassner³

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many frameworks have assessed the ultimate and ontogenetic underpinnings in the development of object permanence, but less is known about whether individual characteristics, such as sex or training level, as well as proximate factors, such as arousal or emotional state, affect performance in these tasks. The current study investigated horses’ performance in visible and invisible displacement tasks and investigated whether specific ontogenetic, behavioral and physiological factors were associated with performance. The study included 39 Icelandic horses aged 2–25 years, of varying training levels. The horses were exposed to three tasks: a) a choice test (n=37), b) a visible displacement task (n=35), and c) an invisible displacement task (n=31). 27 horses in the choice test, and 8 horses in the visible displacement task, performed significantly better than expected by chance, while none did so in the invisible displacement task. This was also reflected in their group performance, where horses performed above chance level in the choice task and the visible displacement task only. In the invisible displacement task, the group performed significantly worse than expected by chance indicating that horses persistently chose the side where they had last seen the target. None of the individual characteristics included in the study had an effect on performance. Unsuccessful horses showed higher heart rate levels, and expressed more behavior indicative of frustration, likely because of their inability to solve the task. The increased frustration/arousal could lead to a negative feedback loop, which might hamperperformance in subsequent trials. Care should thus be taken in future experimental designs to closely monitor the arousal level of the tested individuals in order to safeguard comparability.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Horses’ (Equus caballus) performance in visible and invisible displacement tasks is expressed in frustration behavior and heart rate

Rørvang¹,

Ničová²,

Sassner³

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results showed that horses expressed both behavioral and physiological signs of frustration when they were not able to solve the presented displacement task. This finding is in line with previous studies where horses were faced with different tasks [e.g., when trying to get hay from triple tier hay nests (Ellis et al, 2015), solving an operant task: (Rørvang et al, 2020b), and during locomotion (Ödberg, 1973)] and also expressed behavior indicative of frustration. Adding to this, the behavioral frustration data was obtained by 1/0 sampling which means the true frequency of frustration behavior is likely much higher.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Success rate in target training was also noted as successful trials out of 10 trials total (as all horses accomplished at least 80% success rate in their first session i.e., 10 trials). For all tests; choice test, and visible and invisible displacement task, success rate (successful trials out of 10) was noted, and behavior potentially indicative of frustration (defined as; scraping or stamping the pen bedding, scratching body, head shaking, or pawing (from Rørvang et al, 2020a , b ) was also noted as 1/0 sampling during each trial (hence maximum 10 occurrences per horse per test).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Horses’ (Equus caballus) Ability to Solve Visible but Not Invisible Displacement Tasks Is Associated With Frustration Behavior and Heart Rate

Rørvang

Ničová

Sassner

et al. 2021

Front. Behav. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many frameworks have assessed the ultimate and ontogenetic underpinnings in the development of object permanence, but less is known about whether individual characteristics, such as sex or training level, as well as proximate factors, such as arousal or emotional state, affect performance in these tasks. The current study investigated horses’ performance in visible and invisible displacement tasks and assessed whether specific ontogenetic, behavioral, and physiological factors were associated with performance. The study included 39 Icelandic horses aged 2–25 years, of varying training levels. The horses were exposed to three tasks: (a) a choice test (n = 37), (b) a visible displacement task (n = 35), and (c) an invisible displacement task (n = 31). 27 horses in the choice test, and 8 horses in the visible displacement task, performed significantly better than expected by chance, while none did so in the invisible displacement task. This was also reflected in their group performance, where horses performed above chance level in the choice task and the visible displacement task only. In the invisible displacement task, the group performed significantly worse than expected by chance indicating that horses persistently chose the side where they had last seen the target. None of the individual characteristics included in the study had an effect on performance. Unsuccessful horses had higher heart rate levels, and expressed more behavior indicative of frustration, likely because of their inability to solve the task. The increased frustration/arousal could lead to a negative feedback loop, which might hamper performance in subsequent trials. Care should thus be taken in future experimental designs to closely monitor the arousal level of the tested individuals in order to safeguard comparability.

show abstract

“…Similar to other domestic animals, like dogs (Miklósi and Soproni 2006 ), cats (Mäses and Wascher 2022 ), goats (Kaminski et al 2005 ; Nawroth et al 2020 ) and horses (Krueger et al 2011 ; Proops and McComb 2010 ), who have already been documented to learn from humans (dogs: e.g. Huber et al 2009 ; Miller et al 2009 ; cats: Fugazza et al 2021 ; goats: Nawroth et al 2016a ; horses: Bernauer et al 2020 ; Schuetz et al 2017 ; but see Rørvang et al 2020 ; Burla et al 2018 ), pigs have been found to pay attention to humans and can learn to follow human-given cues like pointing gestures (Bensoussan et al 2016 ; Nawroth et al 2013 , 2014 ; Nawroth et al 2016a , b ; but see Albiach-Serrano et al 2012 ; Gerencsér et al 2019 ), or object handling (shaking of a food container, Albiach-Serrano et al 2012 ), although with inconsistent results due to the large variation in the given cue types (distal/proximal, sustained/momentary), or the subjects’ ages and pre-experiences. Although learning from humans about object manipulation might be additionally difficult due to differing morphologies, pigs might be a likely candidate for possessing heterospecific learning capabilities; especially if social tolerance is a driving factor in observational learning in adult pigs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emulative learning of a two-step task in free-ranging domestic pigs

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research showed that young domestic pigs learn through observation of conspecifics by using social learning mechanisms like social facilitation, enhancement effects, and even object movement re-enactment. The latter suggests some form of emulative learning in which the observer learns about the object’s movements and affordances. As it remains unclear whether pigs need a social agent to learn about objects, we provided 36 free-ranging domestic pigs with varying degrees of social to non-social demonstrations on how to solve a two-step manipulative foraging task: observers watched either a conspecific or a human demonstrator, or self-moving objects ("ghost control"), or a ghost control accompanied by an inactive conspecific bystander. In addition, 22 subjects that were previously tested without any demonstrator were used as a non-observer control. To solve the task, the subjects had to first remove a plug from its recess to then be able to slide a cover to the side, which would lay open a food compartment. Observers interacted longer with the relevant objects (plugs) and were more successful in solving the task compared to non-observers. We found no differences with regard to success between the four observer groups, indicating that the pigs mainly learned about the apparatus rather than about the actions. As the only common feature of the different demonstrations was the movement of the plug and the cover, we conclude the observer pigs learned primarily by emulation, suggesting that social agents are not necessary for pigs when learning through observation.

show abstract

Horses Failed to Learn from Humans by Observation

Cited by 5 publications

References 23 publications

Horses’ (Equus caballus) performance in visible and invisible displacement tasks is expressed in frustration behavior and heart rate

Horses’ (Equus caballus) performance in visible and invisible displacement tasks is expressed in frustration behavior and heart rate

Horses’ (Equus caballus) Ability to Solve Visible but Not Invisible Displacement Tasks Is Associated With Frustration Behavior and Heart Rate

Emulative learning of a two-step task in free-ranging domestic pigs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About