FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Front Psychol / Does the stimulus type influence horses’ performance i...
Frontiers in psychology2012; 3; 504; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00504

Does the stimulus type influence horses’ performance in a quantity discrimination task?

Abstract: The ability to understand the relation between quantities has been documented in a wide range of species. Such quantity discrimination competences are commonly demonstrated by a choice of the larger quantity or numerosity in a two-choice task. However, despite their overall success, many subjects commit a surprisingly large number of errors even in simple discriminations such as 1 vs. 3. Recently, it had been suggested that this is a result of the testing procedure. When monkeys could choose between different quantities of edible rewards, they showed low-level success. If, however, they chose between inedible items and were rewarded with edible items, their performance increased. The same held true if they chose between edible items but were rewarded with other edible items (Schmitt and Fischer, 2011). This led to the suggestion that the monkeys may not have been able to mentally separate between choice- and reward-stimuli in the initial test situation. To investigate if this response pattern can also be found in non-primate species, we replicated the experiment with 12 Icelandic horses kept at a private horse-riding school. Horses are known to discriminate between quantities up to three, but are very distantly related to primates. Unexpectedly, we found only weak evidence for quantity discrimination skills and no effect of the type of stimuli. Only some subjects reliably selected the larger quantity in some, but not all quantity pairs. These findings are not only in contrast to the previously conducted study on monkeys, but also to other studies on horses. From this, we conclude that quantity discrimination competence may only be of minor importance for horses and highlight the influence of experimental conditions on the outcome of cognitive tests.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2012-11-16 PubMed ID: 23181043PubMed Central: PMC3499915DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00504Google 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.

The research article investigates whether the type of stimulus influences horses’ performance in quantity discrimination tasks. It questions whether horses, like some primates, become better at selecting larger quantities when rewarded with different items than the ones used in the test.

Introduction and Background

  • The article mentions previous research showcasing the ability to discern between quantities in various species. This ability is usually tested via a two-choice task where the subject selects the larger quantity or numerosity.
  • Interesting was the observation of many subjects making errors in simple discrimination tasks such as 1 vs. 3, which led researchers to think that this might be due to the procedure of testing.
  • Previous experiments with monkeys showed that when they chose between different quantities of edible rewards, their performance was mediocre. However, their discrimination improved when they had to select between inedible items and were rewarded with edible items or if they had to decide between edible items but were rewarded with different edible items.

Research Procedure

  • The researchers decided to see whether this response pattern found in primates is also present in non-primate species. They replicated the experiment using 12 Icelandic horses from a private horse-riding school.
  • The horses’ quantity discrimination abilities were tested, as horses have previously demonstrated the ability to discriminate between quantities up to three.

Results and Conclusion

  • The results of the experiment were somewhat unexpected. The findings showed only weak evidence for quantity discrimination skills in horses and no effect of the type of stimuli.
  • Only a few subjects consistently selected the larger quantity in some quantity pairs, but not all.
  • These results contrasted not just against the findings from the monkey study but also against previous horse studies.
  • The researchers concluded that quantity discrimination competence might not be significant for horses.
  • Furthermore, the study underlined the potential influence of experimental conditions on the outcomes of cognitive tests.

Cite This Article

APA
Henselek Y, Fischer J, Schloegl C. (2012). Does the stimulus type influence horses’ performance in a quantity discrimination task? Front Psychol, 3, 504. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00504

Publication

Frontiers in psychology
ISSN: 1664-1078
NlmUniqueID: 101550902
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 3
Pages: 504

Researcher Affiliations

Henselek, Yuki
  • Cognitive Ethology Laboratory, German Primate Center Göttingen, Germany.
Fischer, Julia
    Schloegl, Christian

      References

      This article includes 62 references
      1. Agrillo C, Dadda M, Serena G, Bisazza A. Use of number by fish. PLoS ONE 4, e4786.
        doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004786pmc: PMC2650784pubmed: 19274079google scholar: lookup
      2. Agrillo C, Petrazzini M E M. The importance of replication in comparative psychology: the lesson of elephant quantity judgments. Front. Psychol. 3:181.
        doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00181pmc: PMC3365653pubmed: 22675317google scholar: lookup
      3. Agrillo C, Piffer L, Bisazza A. Large number discrimination by mosquitofish. PLoS ONE 5, e15232.
        doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015232pmc: PMC3008722pubmed: 21203508google scholar: lookup
      4. Agrillo C, Piffer L, Bisazza A. Number versus continuous quantity in numerosity judgments by fish. Cognition 119, 281–287.
        doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.022pubmed: 21109238google scholar: lookup
      5. Al Aïn S, Giret N, Grand M, Kreutzer M, Bovet D. The discrimination of discrete and continuous amounts in African grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus). Anim. Cogn. 12, 145–154.
        doi: 10.1007/s10071-008-0178-8pubmed: 18704526google scholar: lookup
      6. Anderson U S, Stoinski T S, Bloomsmith M A, Marr M J, Smith A D, Maple T L. Relative numerousness judgment and summation in young and old Western lowland gorillas. J. Comp. Psychol. 119, 285–295.
        doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.119.4.461pubmed: 16131257google scholar: lookup
      7. Beran M J. Monkeys (Macaca mulatta and Cebus apella) track, enumerate, and compare multiple sets of moving items. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 34, 63–74.
        doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.34.1.63pubmed: 18248115google scholar: lookup
      8. Beran M J, Beran M M. Chimpanzees remember the results of one-by-one addition of food items to sets over extended time periods. Psychol. Sci. 15, 94–99.
        doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01502004.xpubmed: 14738515google scholar: lookup
      9. Biro D, Matsuzawa T. Use of numerical symbols by the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes): cardinals, ordinals, and the introduction of zero. Anim. Cogn. 4, 193–199.
        doi: 10.1007/s100710100086pubmed: 24777509google scholar: lookup
      10. Bogale B A, Kamata N, Mioko K, Sugita S. Quantity discrimination in jungle crows, Corvus macrorhynchos. Anim. Behav. 82, 635–641.
        doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.05.025google scholar: lookup
      11. Boyson S T, Berntson G G. Responses to quantity: perceptual versus cognitive mechanisms in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 21, 82–86.
        doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.21.1.82pubmed: 7844508google scholar: lookup
      12. Brannon E M, Cantlon J F, Terrace H S. The role of reference points in ordinal numerical comparisons by rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 32, 120–134.
        doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.32.2.120pubmed: 16634655google scholar: lookup
      13. Bräuer J, Call J, Tomasello M. Chimpanzees really know what others can see in a competitive situation. Anim. Cogn. 10, 439–448.
        doi: 10.1007/s10071-007-0088-1pubmed: 17426993google scholar: lookup
      14. Carlson S M, Davis A C, Leach J G. Less is more: executive function and symbolic representation in preschool children. Psychol. Sci. 16, 609–616.
        doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01583.xpubmed: 16102063google scholar: lookup
      15. Dadda M, Piffer L, Agrillo C, Bisazza A. Spontaneous number representation in mosquitofish. Cognition 112, 343–348.
        doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.009pubmed: 19520367google scholar: lookup
      16. DeLoache J S. Dual representation and young children’s use of scale models. Child Dev. 71, 329–338.
        doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00148pubmed: 10834468google scholar: lookup
      17. Evans T A, Beran M J, Harris E H, Rice D F. Quantity judgments of sequentially presented food items by capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Anim. Cogn. 12, 97–105.
        doi: 10.1007/s10071-008-0174-zpubmed: 18670794google scholar: lookup
      18. Fawcett T W, McNamara J M, Houston A I. When is it adaptive to be patient? A general framework for evaluating delayed rewards. Behav. Processes 89, 128–136.
        doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2011.08.015pubmed: 21920413google scholar: lookup
      19. Fischhoff I R, Sundaresan S R, Cordingley J, Larkin H M, Sellier M-J, Rubenstein D I. Social relationships and reproductive state influence leadership roles in movements of plain zebra Equus burchelli. Anim. Behav. 73, 825–831.
        doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.10.012google scholar: lookup
      20. Flombaum J I, Junge J A, Hauser M D. Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) spontaneously compute addition operations over large numbers. Cognition 97, 315–325.
        doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.09.004pubmed: 16260264google scholar: lookup
      21. Galwey N W. Introduction to Mixed Modelling. Chichester: Wiley.
      22. Garamszegi L Z, Calhim S, Dochtermann N, Hegyi G, Hurd P L, Jorgensen C. Changing philosophies and tools for statistical inferences in behavioral ecology. Behav. Ecol. 20, 1363–1375.
        doi: 10.1093/beheco/arp137google scholar: lookup
      23. Hanggi E B. Discrimination learning based on relative size concepts in horses (Equus caballus). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 83, 201–213.
        doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00136-9google scholar: lookup
      24. Hare B, Call J, Tomasello M. Do chimpanzees know what conspecifics know?. Anim. Behav. 61, 139–151.
        doi: 10.1006/anbe.2000.1518pubmed: 11170704google scholar: lookup
      25. Helton W S, Helton N D. Physical size matters in the domestic dog’s (Canis lupus familiaris) ability to use human pointing cues. Behav. Processes 85, 77–79.
        doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2010.05.008pubmed: 20553825google scholar: lookup
      26. Herrmann E, Call J, Hernández-Lloreda M V, Hare B, Tomasello M. Humans have evolved specialized skills of social cognition: the cultural intelligence hypothesis. Science 317, 1360–1366.
        doi: 10.1126/science.1146282pubmed: 17823346google scholar: lookup
      27. Hunt S, Low J, Burns K C. Adaptive numerical competency in a food-hoarding songbird. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 275, 2373–2379.
        doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.0702pmc: PMC2603231pubmed: 18611847google scholar: lookup
      28. Irie N, Hasegawa T. Summation by Asian elephants (Elephas maximus). Behav. Sci. 2, 50–56.
        doi: 10.3390/bs2020050pmc: PMC4217582pubmed: 25379215google scholar: lookup
      29. Jakovcevic A, Elgier A M, Mustaca A E, Bentosela M. Breed differences in dogs’ (Canis familiaris) gaze to the human face. Behav. Processes 84, 602–607.
        doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2010.04.003pubmed: 20385214google scholar: lookup
      30. Karin-D’Arcy M R, Povinelli D J. Do chimpanzees know what each other see? A closer look. Int. J. Comp. Psychol. 15, 21–54.
      31. Koehler O. “Zähl”-versuche an einem kolkraben und vergleichsversuche an menschen. Z. Tierpsychol. 5, 1943.
      32. Krüger K, Flauger B. Social feeding decisions in horses (Equus caballus). Behav. Processes 78, 76–83.
        doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2008.01.009pubmed: 18313236google scholar: lookup
      33. Krüger K, Flauger B, Farmer K, Maros K. Horses (Equus caballus) use human local enhancement cues and adjust to human attention. Anim. Cogn. 14, 187–201.
        doi: 10.1007/s10071-010-0352-7pubmed: 20845052google scholar: lookup
      34. Lampe J F, Andre J. Cross-modal recognition of human individuals in domestic horses (Equus caballus). Anim. Cogn. 15, 623–630.
        doi: 10.1007/s10071-012-0490-1pubmed: 22526687google scholar: lookup
      35. Linklater W. Adaptive explanation in socio-ecology: lessons from the Equidae. Biol. Rev. 75, 1–20.
        doi: 10.1017/S0006323199005411pubmed: 10740891google scholar: lookup
      36. MacLean E L, Matthews L J, Hare B A, Nunn C L, Anderson R C, Aureli F. How does cognition evolve? Phylogenetic comparative psychology. Anim. Cogn. 15, 223–238.
        doi: 10.1007/s10071-011-0425-2pmc: PMC3980718pubmed: 21927850google scholar: lookup
      37. McComb K, Packer C, Pusey A. Roaring and numerical assessment in contests between groups of female lions, Panthera leo. Anim. Behav. 47, 379–387.
        doi: 10.1006/anbe.1994.1052google scholar: lookup
      38. McKinley J, Sambrook T D. Use of human-given cues by domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and horses (Equus caballus). Anim. Cogn. 3, 13–22.
        doi: 10.1007/s100710050046google scholar: lookup
      39. Mulcahy N J, Hedge V. Are great apes tested with an abject object-choice task?. Anim. Behav. 83, 313–321.
        doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.11.019google scholar: lookup
      40. Pepperberg I M. Evidence for conceptual quantitative abilities in the African grey parrot: labeling of cardinal sets. Ethology 75, 37–61.
        doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.1987.tb00641.xgoogle scholar: lookup
      41. Pepperberg I M, Gordon J D. Number comprehension by a grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus), including a zero-like concept. J. Comp. Psychol. 119, 197–209.
        doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.119.2.197pubmed: 15982163google scholar: lookup
      42. Perdue B M, Talbot C F, Stone A M, Beran M J. Putting the elephant back in the herd: elephant relative quantity judgments match those of other species. Anim. Cogn. 15, 955–961.
        doi: 10.1007/s10071-012-0521-ypubmed: 22692435google scholar: lookup
      43. Pfungst O. Clever Hans (The Horse of Mr. von Osten): A Contribution to Experimental Animal and Human Psychology. New York: Henry Holt.
      44. Proops L, Burden F, Osthaus B. Mule cognition: a case of hybrid vigour?. Anim. Cogn. 12, 75–84.
        doi: 10.1007/s10071-008-0172-1pubmed: 18636282google scholar: lookup
      45. Proops L, McComb K, Reby D. Cross-modal individual recognition in domestic horses (Equus caballus). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 947–951.
        doi: 10.1073/pnas.0809127105pmc: PMC2630083pubmed: 19075246google scholar: lookup
      46. Proops L, McComb K. Attributing attention: the use of human-given cues by domestic horses (Equus caballus). Anim. Cogn. 13, 197–205.
        doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0257-5pubmed: 19588176google scholar: lookup
      47. Proops L, McComb K. Cross-modal individual recognition in domestic horses (Equus caballus) extends to familiar humans. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 279, 3131–3138.
        doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.0626pmc: PMC3385734pubmed: 22593108google scholar: lookup
      48. Proops L, Walton M, McComb K. The use of human-given cues by domestic horses, Equus caballus, during an object choice task. Anim. Behav. 79, 1205–1209.
        doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.02.015pubmed: 19588176google scholar: lookup
      49. Rugani R, Fontanari L, Simoni E, Regolin L, Vallortigara G. Arithmetic in newborn chicks. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 276, 2451–2460.
        doi: 10.1098/rspb.2009.0044pmc: PMC2690459pubmed: 19364746google scholar: lookup
      50. Saslow C A. Understanding the perceptual world of horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 78, 209–224.
        doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00092-8google scholar: lookup
      51. Scarf D, Hayne H, Colombo M. Pigeons on par with primates in numerical competence. Science 334, 1664.
        doi: 10.1126/science.1213357pubmed: 22194568google scholar: lookup
      52. Schmitt V, Fischer J. Representational format determines numerical competence in monkeys. Nat. Commun. 2, 257.
        doi: 10.1038/ncomms1262pmc: PMC3072099pubmed: 21448156google scholar: lookup
      53. Seed A, Seddon E, Greene B, Call J. Chimpanzee ‘folk physics’: bringing failures into focus. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 367, 2743–2752.
        doi: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0222pmc: PMC3427557pubmed: 22927573google scholar: lookup
      54. Shifferman E M. Its own reward: lessons to be drawn from the reversed-reward contingency paradigm. Anim. Cogn. 12, 547–558.
        doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0215-2pubmed: 19205761google scholar: lookup
      55. Smirnova A A, Lazareva O F, Zorina Z A. Use of number by crows: investigation by matching and oddity learning. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 73, 163–176.
        doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.73-163pmc: PMC1284769pubmed: 10784007google scholar: lookup
      56. Smith S, Goldman L. Color discrimination in horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 62, 13–25.
        doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00206-8google scholar: lookup
      57. Stevens J R, Hallinan E V, Hauser M D. The ecology and evolution of patience in two new world monkeys. Biol. Lett. 1, 223–226.
        doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2004.0285pmc: PMC1626214pubmed: 17148172google scholar: lookup
      58. Thornton A, Lukas D. Individual variation in cognitive performance: developmental and evolutionary perspectives. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 367, 2773–2783.
        doi: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0270pmc: PMC3427550pubmed: 22927576google scholar: lookup
      59. Timney B, Keil K. Visual acuity in the horse. Vision Res. 32, 2289–2293.
        doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(92)90092-Wpubmed: 1288005google scholar: lookup
      60. Uller C, Lewis J. Horses (Equus caballus) select the greater of two quantities in small numerical contrasts. Anim. Cogn. 12, 733–738.
        doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0225-0pubmed: 19387706google scholar: lookup
      61. Vonk J, Beran M J. Bears ‘count’ too: quantity estimation and comparison in black bears, Ursus americanus. Anim. Behav. 84, 231–238.
        doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.07.020pmc: PMC3398692pubmed: 22822244google scholar: lookup
      62. Wobber V, Hare B, Koler-Matznick J, Wrangham R W, Tomasello M. Breed differences in domestic dogs’ (Canis familiaris) comprehension of human communicative signals. Interact. Stud. 10, 206–224.
        doi: 10.1075/is.10.2.06wobgoogle scholar: lookup

      Citations

      This article has been cited 3 times.
      1. Brucks D, Härterich A, König von Borstel U. Horses wait for more and better rewards in a delay of gratification paradigm. Front Psychol 2022;13:954472.
        doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.954472pubmed: 35936272google scholar: lookup
      2. Nawroth C, Langbein J, Coulon M, Gabor V, Oesterwind S, Benz-Schwarzburg J, von Borell E. Farm Animal Cognition-Linking Behavior, Welfare and Ethics. Front Vet Sci 2019;6:24.
        doi: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00024pubmed: 30838218google scholar: lookup
      3. Petrazzini MEM. Trained Quantity Abilities in Horses (Equus caballus): A Preliminary Investigation. Behav Sci (Basel) 2014 Sep;4(3):213-225.
        doi: 10.3390/bs4030213pubmed: 25379278google scholar: lookup
      Subscribe to our newsletter
      Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.