Analyze Diet
Biology letters2015; 11(11); 20150701; doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2015.0701

A horse’s eye view: size and shape discrimination compared with other mammals.

Abstract: Mammals have adapted to a variety of natural environments from underwater to aerial and these different adaptations have affected their specific perceptive and cognitive abilities. This study used a computer-controlled touchscreen system to examine the visual discrimination abilities of horses, particularly regarding size and shape, and compared the results with those from chimpanzee, human and dolphin studies. Horses were able to discriminate a difference of 14% in circle size but showed worse discrimination thresholds than chimpanzees and humans; these differences cannot be explained by visual acuity. Furthermore, the present findings indicate that all species use length cues rather than area cues to discriminate size. In terms of shape discrimination, horses exhibited perceptual similarities among shapes with curvatures, vertical/horizontal lines and diagonal lines, and the relative contributions of each feature to perceptual similarity in horses differed from those for chimpanzees, humans and dolphins. Horses pay more attention to local components than to global shapes.
Publication Date: 2015-11-26 PubMed ID: 26601679PubMed Central: PMC4685539DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2015.0701Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
  • Comparative Study
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The study investigated horses’ ability to differentiate in terms of size and shape, using a computer-controlled touchscreen system. The findings were compared with similar studies on chimpanzees, humans, and dolphins. It was discovered that horses could distinguish a 14% difference in circle size, but their discrimination abilities were less accurate than those of chimpanzees and humans. It was deduced that all species, including horses, use length cues instead of area cues in size discrimination. While observing shape discrimination, horses displayed perceptual similarities among shapes with curvatures, vertical/horizontal lines, and diagonal lines, distinctly different from chimpanzees, humans, and dolphins. The study concluded that horses were more attentive to local components compared to the overall shape.

Study Methodology

  • The researchers used a computer-controlled touchscreen system to investigate how well horses could perceive and distinguish between different sizes and shapes.
  • This study method involved training the animals to differentiate between shapes and sizes displayed on the touchscreen. It required the horses to respond accurately to the visual stimuli provided.
  • The resulting data collected from horses was compared with pre-existing data from studies on other species, including chimpanzees, humans, and dolphins.

Findings

  • Horses demonstrated the capacity to notice a 14% difference in the size of circles. Notwithstanding, their overall discrimination capacity was worse than that of chimpanzees and humans.
  • When observing size discrimination, the researchers discovered that all species, including horses, use length cues. This implies they judge the size of an object based on how long it appears rather than the area it encompasses.
  • In examining shape discrimination, horses exhibited perceivable similarities among shapes with different attributes like curvatures, vertical/horizontal lines, and diagonal lines.

Conclusion

  • Horses’ perception and cognitive abilities showed variations compared to other studied mammals. These differences are significant when considering local components and overall shape as horses gave more attention to local components.
  • The study provides deeper insight into the cognitive abilities of horses, which are different from other mammals. These findings could prove beneficial in understanding and improving procedures involving handling, training, and caring for horses.

Cite This Article

APA
Tomonaga M, Kumazaki K, Camus F, Nicod S, Pereira C, Matsuzawa T. (2015). A horse’s eye view: size and shape discrimination compared with other mammals. Biol Lett, 11(11), 20150701. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2015.0701

Publication

ISSN: 1744-957X
NlmUniqueID: 101247722
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 11
Issue: 11
PII: 20150701

Researcher Affiliations

Tomonaga, Masaki
  • Primate Research Institute, Kyoto University, Inuyama, 484-8506, Japan tomonaga.masaki.4m@kyoto-u.ac.jp.
Kumazaki, Kiyonori
  • Horseman Kakamigahara, Kakamigahara, 509-0145, Japan.
Camus, Florine
  • Ecole Nationale Supérieure d'Agronomie et des Industries Alimentaires, 54505, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
Nicod, Sophie
  • L'institut du Cheval et de l'Équitation Portugaise, 93600, Aulnay-sous-Bois, France.
Pereira, Carlos
  • L'institut du Cheval et de l'Équitation Portugaise, 93600, Aulnay-sous-Bois, France Institute National de la Recherche Agronomique, 75338, Paris, France Université Paris III Sorbonne Nouvelle, 75231, Paris, France.
Matsuzawa, Tetsuro
  • Primate Research Institute, Kyoto University, Inuyama, 484-8506, Japan.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Discrimination, Psychological / physiology
  • Form Perception / physiology
  • Horses / physiology
  • Humans
  • Pan troglodytes
  • Size Perception / physiology
  • Visual Acuity

References

This article includes 16 references
  1. Wilson DE, Reeder DAM (eds). 2005. Wilson and Reeder‘s mammal species of the world (3rd edn). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  2. Hare B, Brown M, Williamson C, Tomasello M. The domestication of social cognition in dogs.. Science 2002 Nov 22;298(5598):1634-6.
    doi: 10.1126/science.1072702pubmed: 12446914google scholar: lookup
  3. Plotnik JM, Lair R, Suphachoksahakun W, de Waal FB. Elephants know when they need a helping trunk in a cooperative task.. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2011 Mar 22;108(12):5116-21.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.1101765108pmc: PMC3064331pubmed: 21383191google scholar: lookup
  4. Takimoto A, Hori Y, Fujita K. The present situation and future prospects of studies on horse cognition. Jpn. J. Anim. Psychol. 61, 141–153.
  5. Timney B, Keil K. Visual acuity in the horse.. Vision Res 1992 Dec;32(12):2289-93.
    doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(92)90092-Wpubmed: 1288005google scholar: lookup
  6. Timney B, Keil K. Horses are sensitive to pictorial depth cues.. Perception 1996;25(9):1121-8.
    doi: 10.1068/p251121pubmed: 8983051google scholar: lookup
  7. Hanggi EB. Discrimination learning based on relative size concepts in horses (Equus caballus). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 83, 201–213.
  8. Hanggi EB. Equine cognition and perception: understanding the horse. In Diversity of cognition: evolution, development, domestication, and pathology (eds Fujita K, Itakura S), pp. 86–118. Kyoto, Japan: Kyoto University Press.
  9. Tomonaga M, Uwano Y, Saito T. How dolphins see the world: a comparison with chimpanzees and humans.. Sci Rep 2014 Jan 16;4:3717.
    doi: 10.1038/srep03717pmc: PMC3893789pubmed: 24435017google scholar: lookup
  10. Matsuzawa T. Sociocognitive development in chimpanzees: a synthesis of laboratory work and field work. In Cognitive development in chimpanzees (eds Matsuzawa T, Tomonaga M, Tanaka M), pp. 3–33. Tokyo, Japan: Springer.
  11. Nachmias J. Shape and size discrimination compared.. Vision Res 2011 Feb 23;51(4):400-7.
    doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2010.12.007pubmed: 21172373google scholar: lookup
  12. Fujita K. Perception of the Ponzo illusion by rhesus monkeys, chimpanzees, and humans: similarity and difference in the three primate species.. Percept Psychophys 1997 Feb;59(2):284-92.
    doi: 10.3758/BF03211896pubmed: 9055623google scholar: lookup
  13. Levitt HCCH. Transformed up–down methods in psychoacoustics. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 49, 467–477.
    doi: 10.1121/1.1912375google scholar: lookup
  14. Tomonaga M, Matsuzawa T. Perception of complex geometric figures in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens): analyses of visual similarity on the basis of choice reaction time.. J Comp Psychol 1992 Mar;106(1):43-52.
    doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.106.1.43pubmed: 1555401google scholar: lookup
  15. Fagot J, Tomonaga M. Global and local processing in humans (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): use of a visual search task with compound stimuli. J. Comp. Psychol. 113, 3–12.
    doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.113.1.3google scholar: lookup
  16. Cavoto KK, Cook RG. Cognitive precedence for local information in hierarchical stimulus processing by pigeons.. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 2001 Jan;27(1):3-16.
    doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.27.1.3pubmed: 11199512google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 11 times.