FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Anim Cogn / Do you see what I see? Testing horses’ ability to reco...
Animal cognition2023; 26(4); 1147-1159; doi: 10.1007/s10071-023-01761-6

Do you see what I see? Testing horses’ ability to recognise real-life objects from 2D computer projections.

Abstract: The use of 2-dimensional representations (e.g. photographs or digital images) of real-life physical objects has been an important tool in studies of animal cognition. Horses are reported to recognise objects and individuals (conspecifics and humans) from printed photographs, but it is unclear whether image recognition is also true for digital images, e.g. computer projections. We expected that horses trained to discriminate between two real-life objects would show the same learnt response to digital images of these objects indicating that the images were perceived as objects, or representations of such. Riding-school horses (N = 27) learnt to touch one of two objects (target object counterbalanced between horses) to instantly receive a food reward. After discrimination learning (three consecutive sessions of 8/10 correct trials), horses were immediately tested with on-screen images of the objects over 10 image trials interspersed with five real object trials. At first image presentation, all but two horses spontaneously responded to the images with the learnt behaviour by contacting one of the two images, but the number of horses touching the correct image was not different from chance (14/27 horses, p > 0.05). Only one horse touched the correct image above chance level across 10 image trials (9/10 correct responses, p = 0.021). Our findings thus question whether horses recognise real-life objects from digital images. We discuss how methodological factors and individual differences (i.e. age, welfare state) might have influenced animals' response to the images, and the importance of validating the suitability of stimuli of this kind for cognitive studies in horses.
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2023-03-02 PubMed ID: 36864246PubMed Central: PMC9980859DOI: 10.1007/s10071-023-01761-6Google 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.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

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.

This research aimed to study horses’ ability to distinguish real-life objects from their two-dimensional (2D) digital projections, and the results suggest that horses may not be able to consistently make this distinction.

Research Objective and Methodology

  • The key objective of this research was to test whether horses could recognise real-life objects they had been trained to respond to from their 2D digital projections. 2D representations are commonly used in studying animal cognition and there have been reports of horses recognising these 2D representations in physical forms such as print photos. However, recognition of digital images was unclear.
  • The study involved 27 horses from a riding school which were trained to touch one of two objects to receive an instant food reward.
  • The learning process consisted of three consecutive sessions with 8 to 10 successful trials in each.
  • Following the learning sessions, horses were tested with on-screen images of the objects, interspersed with trials involving the actual objects. Each horse was given ten image trials.

Observations and Findings

  • In the first round of trials with digital images, all but two horses spontaneously responded in the way they had been trained; however, the horse’s selection of the correct image was not statistically different from a random chance with 14 out of 27 horses selecting the correct digital projection.
  • Only one horse consistently recognised the correct 2D digital projection across the ten image trials.

Interpretation of Results and Future Considerations

  • These results indicate that horses may not typically recognise real-life objects from their 2D digital projections, suggesting a difference in cognitive processing of printed photographs versus digital projections.
  • The study also addresses certain influencing factors such as methodological factors and individual differences like age and welfare state that may have affected the animal’s response to the on-screen images. Therefore, these factors should be taken into account in future studies in this area.
  • The authors stressed the importance of validating the suitability of such stimuli for cognitive studies in horses, given the inconsistencies observed in this study.

Cite This Article

APA
Kappel S, Ramirez Montes De Oca MA, Collins S, Herborn K, Mendl M, Fureix C. (2023). Do you see what I see? Testing horses’ ability to recognise real-life objects from 2D computer projections. Anim Cogn, 26(4), 1147-1159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-023-01761-6

Publication

Animal cognition
ISSN: 1435-9456
NlmUniqueID: 9814573
Country: Germany
Language: English
Volume: 26
Issue: 4
Pages: 1147-1159

Researcher Affiliations

Kappel, Sarah
  • School of Biological and Marine Sciences, University of Plymouth, Portland Square, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK. sarah.kappel@plymouth.ac.uk.
Ramirez Montes De Oca, Marco A
  • Bristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, BS40 5DU, UK.
Collins, Sarah
  • School of Biological and Marine Sciences, University of Plymouth, Portland Square, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK.
Herborn, Katherine
  • School of Biological and Marine Sciences, University of Plymouth, Portland Square, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK.
Mendl, Michael
  • Bristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, BS40 5DU, UK.
Fureix, Carole
  • School of Biological and Marine Sciences, University of Plymouth, Portland Square, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK.
  • Bristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, BS40 5DU, UK.

MeSH Terms

  • Humans
  • Horses
  • Animals
  • Learning
  • Cognition
  • Discrimination Learning / physiology
  • Recognition, Psychology
  • Touch

Grant Funding

  • GD105241-106 / University of Plymouth

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

This article includes 64 references
  1. Amici F. Memories of emotional expressions in horses.. Learn Behav 2019 Sep;47(3):191-192.
    doi: 10.3758/s13420-018-0363-9pmc: PMC6702182pubmed: 30338460google scholar: lookup
  2. Anselme P. Incentive salience attribution under reward uncertainty: A Pavlovian model.. Behav Processes 2015 Feb;111:6-18.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2014.10.016pubmed: 25444780google scholar: lookup
  3. Aust U, Huber L. Picture-object recognition in pigeons: evidence of representational insight in a visual categorization task using a complementary information procedure.. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 2006 Apr;32(2):190-5.
    doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.32.2.190pubmed: 16634663google scholar: lookup
  4. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 2015;67(1):1–48.
    doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01google scholar: lookup
  5. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Roy Stat Soc 1995;57(1):289–300.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  6. Bovet D, Vauclair J. Picture recognition in animals and humans.. Behav Brain Res 2000 May;109(2):143-65.
    doi: 10.1016/S0166-4328(00)00146-7pubmed: 10762685google scholar: lookup
  7. Cabe PA. Transfer of discrimination from solid objects to pictures by pigeons: a test of theoretical models of pictorial perception. Percept Psychophys 1976;19:545–550.
    doi: 10.3758/BF03211224google scholar: lookup
  8. Carere C, Locurto C. Interaction between animal personality and animal cognition. Curr Zool 2011;57:491–498.
    doi: 10.1093/czoolo/57.4.491google scholar: lookup
  9. Christensen JW, Ahrendt LP, Lintrup R. Does learning performance in horses relate to fearfulness, baseline stress hormone, and social rank?. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2012;140:44–52.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.05.003google scholar: lookup
  10. D’Eath RB. Can video images imitate real stimuli in animal behaviour experiments?. Biol Rev 1998;73:267–292.
    doi: 10.1017/S0006323198005179google scholar: lookup
  11. De Boyer Des Roches A, Richard-Yris MA, Henry S, Ezzaouïa M, Hausberger M. Laterality and emotions: visual laterality in the domestic horse (Equus caballus) differs with objects' emotional value.. Physiol Behav 2008 Jun 9;94(3):487-90.
    doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2008.03.002pubmed: 18455205google scholar: lookup
  12. Dougherty LR, Guillette LM. Linking personality and cognition: a meta-analysis.. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2018 Sep 26;373(1756).
    doi: 10.1098/rstb.2017.0282pmc: PMC6107561pubmed: 30104427google scholar: lookup
  13. Dougherty DM, Lewis P. Stimulus generalization, discrimination learning, and peak shift in horses.. J Exp Anal Behav 1991 Jul;56(1):97-104.
    doi: 10.1901/jeab.1991.56-97pmc: PMC1323085pubmed: 1940765google scholar: lookup
  14. Duke-Elder S. System of Ophthalmology. .
  15. Fagot J. Picture perception in animals. .
  16. Fagot J, Parron C. Picture perception in birds: perspective from primatologists. CCBR 2010;5:132–135.
    doi: 10.3819/ccbr.2010.50007google scholar: lookup
  17. Fagot J, Thompson RK, Parron C. How to read a picture: lessons from nonhuman primates.. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010 Jan 12;107(2):519-20.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.0913577107pmc: PMC2818951pubmed: 20080714google scholar: lookup
  18. Flannery B. Relational discrimination learning in horses. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1997;54:267–280.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00006-3google scholar: lookup
  19. Fox J, Weisberg S. An {R} Companion to applied regression, 3rd edn. 2019.
  20. Gabor V, Gerken M. Cognitive testing in horses using a computer based apparatus. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2012;139:242–250.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.04.010google scholar: lookup
  21. Gottlieb DA. Acquisition with partial and continuous reinforcement in pigeon autoshaping.. Learn Behav 2004 Aug;32(3):321-34.
    doi: 10.3758/BF03196031pubmed: 15672827google scholar: lookup
  22. Grzimek B. Begrüßung zweier Pferde: Das Erkennen von Phantomen und Bildern. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 1943;5(3):465–480.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.1943.tb00661.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  23. Hanggi EB. Categorization learning in horses (Equus caballus). J Comp Psychol 1999;113:243–252.
    doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.113.3.243google scholar: lookup
  24. Hanggi E. Can horses recognize pictures?. .
  25. Hanggi EB. Discrimination learning based on relative size concepts in horses (Equus caballus). Appl Anim Behav Sci 2003;83:201–213.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00136-9google scholar: lookup
  26. Hanggi EB, Ingersoll JF. Stimulus discrimination by horses under scotopic conditions.. Behav Processes 2009 Sep;82(1):45-50.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2009.04.009pubmed: 19389464google scholar: lookup
  27. Hanggi EB, Ingersoll JF. Long-term memory for categories and concepts in horses (Equus caballus).. Anim Cogn 2009 May;12(3):451-62.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-008-0205-9pubmed: 19148689google scholar: lookup
  28. Hanggi EB, Ingersoll JF, Waggoner TL. Color vision in horses (Equus caballus): deficiencies identified using a pseudoisochromatic plate test.. J Comp Psychol 2007 Feb;121(1):65-72.
    doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.121.1.65pubmed: 17324076google scholar: lookup
  29. Hausberger M, Stomp M, Sankey C, Brajon S, Lunel C, Henry S. Mutual interactions between cognition and welfare: The horse as an animal model.. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2019 Dec;107:540-559.
    doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.08.022pubmed: 31491471google scholar: lookup
  30. Hebel R. Distribution of retinal ganglion cells in five mammalian species (pig, sheep, ox, horse, dog).. Anat Embryol (Berl) 1976 Dec 22;150(1):45-51.
    doi: 10.1007/BF00346285pubmed: 1015629google scholar: lookup
  31. Hothersall B, Gale EV, Harris P, Nicol CJ. Cue use by foals (Equus caballus) in a discrimination learning task.. Anim Cogn 2010 Jan;13(1):63-74.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0245-9pubmed: 19521725google scholar: lookup
  32. Hughes A. The topography of vision in mammals of contrasting life style: comparative optics and retinal organisation. 1977.
  33. Jacobs GH, Deegan JF 2nd, Neitz J. Photopigment basis for dichromatic color vision in cows, goats, and sheep.. Vis Neurosci 1998 May-Jun;15(3):581-4.
    doi: 10.1017/S0952523898153154pubmed: 9685209google scholar: lookup
  34. Kappel S, Collins S, Herborn K, Mendl M, Fureix C. Developing an affect-related attention bias test in horses. .
  35. Kendrick KM, Atkins K, Hinton MR, Heavens P, Keverne B. Are faces special for sheep? Evidence from facial and object discrimination learning tests showing effects of inversion and social familiarity.. Behav Processes 1996 Oct;38(1):19-35.
    doi: 10.1016/0376-6357(96)00006-Xpubmed: 24897627google scholar: lookup
  36. Krueger K, Farmer K, Heinze J. The effects of age, rank and neophobia on social learning in horses.. Anim Cogn 2014 May;17(3):645-55.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-013-0696-xpubmed: 24170136google scholar: lookup
  37. Lampe JF, Andre J. Cross-modal recognition of human individuals in domestic horses (Equus caballus).. Anim Cogn 2012 Jul;15(4):623-30.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-012-0490-1pubmed: 22526687google scholar: lookup
  38. Lansade L, Colson V, Parias C, Trösch M, Reigner F, Calandreau L. Female horses spontaneously identify a photograph of their keeper, last seen six months previously.. Sci Rep 2020 Apr 14;10(1):6302.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-62940-wpmc: PMC7156667pubmed: 32286345google scholar: lookup
  39. Lansade L, Colson V, Parias C, Reigner F, Bertin A, Calandreau L. Human Face Recognition in Horses: Data in Favor of a Holistic Process.. Front Psychol 2020;11:575808.
    doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.575808pmc: PMC7522352pubmed: 33041946google scholar: lookup
  40. MILLER RE, MURPHY JV. INFLUENCE OF THE SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE CUE, REWARD, AND RESPONSE IN DISCRIMINATION LEARNING.. J Exp Psychol 1964 Feb;67:120-3.
    doi: 10.1037/h0040113pubmed: 14114907google scholar: lookup
  41. Murphy J, Waldmann T, Arkins S. Sex differences in equine learning skills and visuo-spatial ability. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2004;87:119–130.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2003.12.002google scholar: lookup
  42. Oh J, Šlipogor V, Fitch WT. Artificial visual stimuli for animal experiments: An experimental evaluation in a prey capture context with common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus).. J Comp Psychol 2019 Feb;133(1):72-80.
    doi: 10.1037/com0000129pubmed: 30198735google scholar: lookup
  43. Parron C, Call J, Fagot J. Behavioural responses to photographs by pictorially naïve baboons (Papio anubis), gorillas (Gorilla gorilla) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes).. Behav Processes 2008 Jul;78(3):351-7.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2008.01.019pubmed: 18342457google scholar: lookup
  44. Pfungst O, Rahn CL. A contribution to experimental animal and human psychology. 1911.
  45. Proops L, McComb K. Attributing attention: the use of human-given cues by domestic horses (Equus caballus).. Anim Cogn 2010 Mar;13(2):197-205.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0257-5pubmed: 19588176google scholar: lookup
  46. Proops L, McComb K, Reby D. Cross-modal individual recognition in domestic horses (Equus caballus).. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009 Jan 20;106(3):947-51.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.0809127105pmc: PMC2630083pubmed: 19075246google scholar: lookup
  47. Proops L, Rayner J, Taylor AM, McComb K. The Responses of Young Domestic Horses to Human-Given Cues.. PLoS One 2013;8(6):e67000.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067000pmc: PMC3686775pubmed: 23840572google scholar: lookup
  48. Proops L, Grounds K, Smith AV, McComb K. Animals Remember Previous Facial Expressions that Specific Humans Have Exhibited.. Curr Biol 2018 May 7;28(9):1428-1432.e4.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.03.035pubmed: 29706519google scholar: lookup
  49. R Core team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. 2021.
  50. Rørvang MV, Nielsen BL, McLean AN. Sensory Abilities of Horses and Their Importance for Equitation Science.. Front Vet Sci 2020;7:633.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00633pmc: PMC7509108pubmed: 33033724google scholar: lookup
  51. Rowe C, Healy SD. Measuring variation in cognition. Behav Ecol 2014;25:1287–1292.
    doi: 10.1093/beheco/aru090google scholar: lookup
  52. Saslow CA. Understanding the perceptual world of horses. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2002;78:209–224.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00092-8google scholar: lookup
  53. Smith AV, Proops L, Grounds K, Wathan J, McComb K. Functionally relevant responses to human facial expressions of emotion in the domestic horse (Equus caballus).. Biol Lett 2016 Feb;12(2):20150907.
    doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2015.0907pmc: PMC4780548pubmed: 26864784google scholar: lookup
  54. Timney B, Macuda T. Vision and hearing in horses.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2001 May 15;218(10):1567-74.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.2001.218.1567pubmed: 11393366google scholar: lookup
  55. Tomonaga M, Kumazaki K, Camus F, Nicod S, Pereira C, Matsuzawa T. A horse's eye view: size and shape discrimination compared with other mammals.. Biol Lett 2015 Nov;11(11).
    doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2015.0701pmc: PMC4685539pubmed: 26601679google scholar: lookup
  56. Trösch M, Cuzol F, Parias C, Calandreau L, Nowak R, Lansade L. Horses Categorize Human Emotions Cross-Modally Based on Facial Expression and Non-Verbal Vocalizations.. Animals (Basel) 2019 Oct 24;9(11).
    doi: 10.3390/ani9110862pmc: PMC6912773pubmed: 31653088google scholar: lookup
  57. Trösch M, Pellon S, Cuzol F, Parias C, Nowak R, Calandreau L, Lansade L. Horses feel emotions when they watch positive and negative horse-human interactions in a video and transpose what they saw to real life.. Anim Cogn 2020 Jul;23(4):643-653.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-020-01369-0pubmed: 32162112google scholar: lookup
  58. Valenchon M, Lévy F, Prunier A, Moussu C, Calandreau L, Lansade L. Stress modulates instrumental learning performances in horses (Equus caballus) in interaction with temperament.. PLoS One 2013;8(4):e62324.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062324pmc: PMC3633893pubmed: 23626801google scholar: lookup
  59. Vandenheede M, Bouissou MF. Fear reactions of ewes to photographic images.. Behav Processes 1994 Jun;32(1):17-28.
    doi: 10.1016/0376-6357(94)90024-8pubmed: 24925110google scholar: lookup
  60. von Borell E, Langbein J, Després G, Hansen S, Leterrier C, Marchant J, Marchant-Forde R, Minero M, Mohr E, Prunier A, Valance D, Veissier I. Heart rate variability as a measure of autonomic regulation of cardiac activity for assessing stress and welfare in farm animals -- a review.. Physiol Behav 2007 Oct 22;92(3):293-316.
    doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.01.007pubmed: 17320122google scholar: lookup
  61. Waring GH. Horse behaviour. 2. 2003.
  62. Wathan J, Burrows AM, Waller BM, McComb K. EquiFACS: The Equine Facial Action Coding System.. PLoS One 2015;10(8):e0131738.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131738pmc: PMC4526551pubmed: 26244573google scholar: lookup
  63. Wathan J, Proops L, Grounds K, McComb K. Horses discriminate between facial expressions of conspecifics.. Sci Rep 2016 Dec 20;6:38322.
    doi: 10.1038/srep38322pmc: PMC5171796pubmed: 27995958google scholar: lookup
  64. Weisman R, Spetch M. Determining when birds perceive correspondence between pictures and objects: a critique. CCBR 2010;5:117–131.
    doi: 10.3819/ccbr.2010.50006google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.