FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / PLoS One / The Responses of Young Domestic Horses to Human-Given Cues.
PloS one2013; 8(6); e67000; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067000

The Responses of Young Domestic Horses to Human-Given Cues.

Abstract: It has been suggested that the process of domestication, at least in some species, has led to an innate predisposition to be skilled at reading human communicative and attentional cues. Adult domestic horses (Equus caballus) are highly sensitive to subtle bodily cues when determining if a person is attending to them but they are less adept at using human communicative cues in object choice tasks. Here we provide the first study into the ontogeny of such skills in order to gain insights into the mechanisms underlying these abilities. Compared with adult horses, youngsters under the age of three could use body orientation but not more subtle cues such as head movement and open/closed eyes to correctly choose an attentive person to approach for food. Across two object choice experiments, the performance of young horses was comparable to that of adult horses - subjects were able to correctly choose a rewarded bucket using marker placement, pointing and touching cues but could not use body orientation, gaze, elbow pointing or tapping cues. Taken together these results do not support the theory that horses possess an innate predisposition to be particularly skilled at using human cues. Horses' ability to determine whether humans are attending to them using subtle body cues appears to require significant experience to fully develop and their perhaps less remarkable use of limited cues in object choice tasks, although present at a much earlier age, is likely to reflect a more general learning ability related to stimulus enhancement rather than a specific 'human-reading' skill.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2013-06-19 PubMed ID: 23840572PubMed Central: PMC3686775DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067000Google 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
  • 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.

This study investigates the ability of young domestic horses to interpret and respond to various human cues. It challenges the notion that domesticated horses inherit an innate ability to interpret human signals, suggesting instead that the skill requires significant experience to fully develop.

Study Background and Purpose

  • The research was driven by the belief that domesticated animals, like horses, naturally possess the capability to understand human cues.
  • Prior research shows that adult horses can interpret subtle body language to determine if a person is paying attention to them. However, they are less proficient at utilizing human cues in object selection tasks.
  • The main goal of this research was to explore the development of these skills in young horses to understand the underlying mechanisms.

    • Research Method and Findings

    • The young horses, all under three years of age, were observed for their ability to use different signals like body orientation, head movement, and eye status (open or closed) to correctly select an attentive person to approach for food.
    • A series of object selection experiments revealed that young horses’ performance was akin to that of their older counterparts. They could correctly select a rewarded bucket when cues involved marker placement, pointing, or touching.
    • However, they struggled to use other cues such as body orientation, gaze, elbow pointing, or tapping.

    Conclusions and Implications

    • The findings suggest that horses do not have an inherent predisposition to adeptly use human cues.
    • It appears that significant experience is required for their ability to interpret subtler body cues indicating whether a human is paying attention to them.
    • Their skill, or lack thereof, in object selection tasks, reflects a more general learning capability related to stimulus enhancement rather than a specific ‘human-reading’ skill.

    Significance of the Study

    • This research contributes to a better understanding of the learning process and capabilities of young horses.
    • It further emphasizes the need for experience and training to effectively communicate with horses using non-verbal cues.
    • Lastly, it challenges the prevailing belief regarding domesticated animals’ inherent skills to comprehend human signals, which could have wider implications in the fields of animal behaviour and training.

Cite This Article

APA
Proops L, Rayner J, Taylor AM, McComb K. (2013). The Responses of Young Domestic Horses to Human-Given Cues. PLoS One, 8(6), e67000. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067000

Publication

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
NlmUniqueID: 101285081
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 8
Issue: 6
Pages: e67000
PII: e67000

Researcher Affiliations

Proops, Leanne
  • Mammal Vocal Communication and Cognition Research, Department of Psychology, University of Sussex, Sussex, United Kingdom.
Rayner, Jenny
    Taylor, Anna M
      McComb, Karen

        MeSH Terms

        • Age Factors
        • Animals
        • Animals, Domestic / physiology
        • Behavior, Animal / physiology
        • Choice Behavior
        • Cues
        • Female
        • Horses / physiology
        • Humans
        • Male
        • Problem Solving
        • Reward

        Grant Funding

        • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

        Conflict of Interest Statement

        The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

        References

        This article includes 71 references
        1. Pack AA, Herman LM. Bottlenosed dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) comprehend the referent of both static and dynamic human gazing and pointing in an object-choice task.. J Comp Psychol 2004 Jun;118(2):160-71.
          pubmed: 15250803doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.118.2.160google scholar: lookup
        2. Scheumann M, Call J. The use of experimenter-given cues by South African fur seals (Arctocephalus pusillus).. Anim Cogn 2004 Oct;7(4):224-30.
          pubmed: 15057598doi: 10.1007/s10071-004-0216-0google scholar: lookup
        3. Hare B, Brown M, Williamson C, Tomasello M. The domestication of social cognition in dogs.. Science 2002 Nov 22;298(5598):1634-6.
          pubmed: 12446914doi: 10.1126/science.1072702google scholar: lookup
        4. Riedel J, Schumann K, Kaminski J, Call J, Tomasello M. The early ontogeny of human-dog communication. Anim Behav 75: 1003–1014.
        5. Wynne CDL, Udell MAR, Lord KA. Ontogeny's impacts on human-dog communication. Anim Behav 76: E1–E4.
        6. Kaminski J, Riedel J, Call J, Tomasello M. Domestic goats, Capra hircus, follow gaze direction and use social cues in an object choice task. Anim Behav 69: 11–18.
        7. Ferrari PF, Kohler E, Fogassi L, Gallese V. The ability to follow eye gaze and its emergence during development in macaque monkeys.. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2000 Dec 5;97(25):13997-4002.
          pmc: PMC17689pubmed: 11095722doi: 10.1073/pnas.250241197google scholar: lookup
        8. Myowa-Yamakoshi M, Tomonaga M. Perceiving eye gaze in an infant gibbon (Hylobates agilis). Psychologia 44: 24–30.
        9. Tomasello M, Call J, Hare B. Five primate species follow the visual gaze of conspecifics.. Anim Behav 1998 Apr;55(4):1063-9.
          pubmed: 9632490doi: 10.1006/anbe.1997.0636google scholar: lookup
        10. Brauer J, Call J, Tomasello M. Visual perspective taking in dogs (Canis familiaris) in the presence of barriers. Appl Anim Behav Sci 88: 299–317.
        11. Bugnyar T, Stöwe M, Heinrich B. Ravens, Corvus corax, follow gaze direction of humans around obstacles.. Proc Biol Sci 2004 Jul 7;271(1546):1331-6.
          pmc: PMC1691735pubmed: 15306330doi: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2738google scholar: lookup
        12. Wilkinson A, Mandl I, Bugnyar T, Huber L. Gaze following in the red-footed tortoise (Geochelone carbonaria).. Anim Cogn 2010 Sep;13(5):765-9.
          pubmed: 20411292doi: 10.1007/s10071-010-0320-2google scholar: lookup
        13. Dally JM, Emery NJ, Clayton NS. Food-caching western scrub-jays keep track of who was watching when.. Science 2006 Jun 16;312(5780):1662-5.
          pubmed: 16709747doi: 10.1126/science.1126539google scholar: lookup
        14. Bräuer J, Call J, Tomasello M. All great ape species follow gaze to distant locations and around barriers.. J Comp Psychol 2005 May;119(2):145-54.
          pubmed: 15982158doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.119.2.145google scholar: lookup
        15. Bugnyar T. Knower-guesser differentiation in ravens: others' viewpoints matter.. Proc Biol Sci 2011 Feb 22;278(1705):634-40.
          pmc: PMC3025684pubmed: 20826480doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1514google scholar: lookup
        16. Sandel AA, MacLean EL, Hare B. Evidence from four lemur species that ringtailed lemur social cognition converges with that of haplorhine primates. Anim Behav 81: 925–931.
        17. Flombaum JI, Santos LR. Rhesus monkeys attribute perceptions to others.. Curr Biol 2005 Mar 8;15(5):447-52.
          pubmed: 15753039doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2004.12.076google scholar: lookup
        18. Carter J, Lyons NJ, Cole HL, Goldsmith AR. Subtle cues of predation risk: starlings respond to a predator's direction of eye-gaze.. Proc Biol Sci 2008 Aug 7;275(1644):1709-15.
          pmc: PMC2587789pubmed: 18445559doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.0095google scholar: lookup
        19. Call J, Bräuer J, Kaminski J, Tomasello M. Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) are sensitive to the attentional state of humans.. J Comp Psychol 2003 Sep;117(3):257-63.
          pubmed: 14498801doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.117.3.257google scholar: lookup
        20. Sankey C, Henry S, André N, Richard-Yris MA, Hausberger M. Do horses have a concept of person?. PLoS One 2011 Mar 30;6(3):e18331.
          pmc: PMC3068175pubmed: 21479184doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018331google scholar: lookup
        21. Miklósi A, Pongrácz P, Csányi V. The ontogeny of antipredator behavior in paradise fish larvae (Macropodus opercularis) IV. The effect of exposure to siblings.. Dev Psychobiol 1997 May;30(4):283-91.
          pubmed: 9142504doi: 10.1002/(sici)1098-2302(199705)30:4<283::aid-dev2>3.3.co;2-2google scholar: lookup
        22. Jaime M, Lopez JP, Lickliter R. Bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) hatchlings track the direction of human gaze.. Anim Cogn 2009 Jul;12(4):559-65.
          pmc: PMC2764337pubmed: 19205762doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0214-3google scholar: lookup
        23. Burghardt GM. Comparative ethology and critical anthropomorphism: A snake with two heads and hog-nose snakes that play dead. In: Ristau CA, editor. Cognitive ethology: The minds of other animals. Hilldale, N.J.: Erlbaum. 53–90.
        24. Burger J, Gochfeld M, Murray BG. Risk discrimination of eye contact and directness of approach in black iguanas (Ctenosaura similis). J Comp Psychol 106: 97–101.
        25. Bateman PW, Fleming PA. Who are you looking at? Hadeda ibises use direction of gaze, head orientation and approach speed in their risk assessment of a potential predator. J Zool 285: 316–323.
        26. Baron-Cohen S. How to build a baby that can read minds – cognitive mechanisms in mindreading. Cah Psychol Cogn-Curr Psychol Cogn 13: 513–552.
        27. Povinelli DJ, Eddy TJ. What young chimpanzees know about seeing.. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev 1996;61(3):i-vi, 1-152; discussion 153-91.
          pubmed: 8795292
        28. Itakura S. Gaze-following and joint visual attention in nonhuman animals. Jpn Psychol Res 46: 216–226.
        29. Hare B, Tomasello M. Chimpanzees are more skilful in competitive than in cooperative cognitive tasks. Anim Behav 68: 571–581.
        30. von Bayern AM, Emery NJ. Jackdaws respond to human attentional states and communicative cues in different contexts.. Curr Biol 2009 Apr 14;19(7):602-6.
          pubmed: 19345101doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.02.062google scholar: lookup
        31. Hampton RR. Sensitivity to information specifying the line of gaze of humans in sparrows (Passer-domesticus). Behaviour 130: 41–51.
        32. Myowa-Yamakoshi M, Tomonaga M, Tanaka M, Matsuzawa T. Preference for human direct gaze in infant chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes).. Cognition 2003 Sep;89(2):B53-64.
          pubmed: 12915297doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(03)00071-4google scholar: lookup
        33. Hattori Y, Kuroshima H, Fujita K. I know you are not looking at me: capuchin monkeys' (Cebus apella) sensitivity to human attentional states.. Anim Cogn 2007 Apr;10(2):141-8.
          pubmed: 16944232doi: 10.1007/s10071-006-0049-0google scholar: lookup
        34. Vick SJ, Anderson JR. Use of human visual attention cues by olive baboons (Papio anubis) in a competitive task.. J Comp Psychol 2003 Jun;117(2):209-16.
          pubmed: 12856791doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.117.2.209google scholar: lookup
        35. Hostetter AB, Russell JL, Freeman H, Hopkins WD. Now you see me, now you don't: evidence that chimpanzees understand the role of the eyes in attention.. Anim Cogn 2007 Jan;10(1):55-62.
          pmc: PMC2080772pubmed: 16847659doi: 10.1007/s10071-006-0031-xgoogle scholar: lookup
        36. Bulloch MJ, Boysen ST, Furlong EE. Visual attention and its relation to knowledge states in chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes. Anim Behav 76: 1147–1155.
        37. Kaminski J, Call J, Tomasello M. Body orientation and face orientation: two factors controlling apes' behavior from humans.. Anim Cogn 2004 Oct;7(4):216-23.
          pubmed: 15034765doi: 10.1007/s10071-004-0214-2google scholar: lookup
        38. Tempelmann S, Kaminski J, Liebal K. Focus on the essential: all great apes know when others are being attentive.. Anim Cogn 2011 May;14(3):433-9.
          pubmed: 21258952doi: 10.1007/s10071-011-0378-5google scholar: lookup
        39. Reaux JE, Theall LA, Povinelli DJ. A longitudinal investigation of chimpanzees' understanding of visual perception. Child Dev 70: 275–290.
        40. Gácsi M, Miklósi A, Varga O, Topál J, Csányi V. Are readers of our face readers of our minds? Dogs (Canis familiaris) show situation-dependent recognition of human's attention.. Anim Cogn 2004 Jul;7(3):144-53.
          pubmed: 14669075doi: 10.1007/s10071-003-0205-8google scholar: lookup
        41. Virányi Z, Topál J, Gácsi M, Miklósi A, Csányi V. Dogs respond appropriately to cues of humans' attentional focus.. Behav Processes 2004 May 31;66(2):161-72.
          pubmed: 15110918doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2004.01.012google scholar: lookup
        42. Schwab C, Huber L. Obey or not obey? Dogs (Canis familiaris) behave differently in response to attentional states of their owners.. J Comp Psychol 2006 Aug;120(3):169-75.
          pubmed: 16893253doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.120.3.169google scholar: lookup
        43. 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.
          pubmed: 19588176doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0257-5google scholar: lookup
        44. Reid PJ. Adapting to the human world: dogs' responsiveness to our social cues.. Behav Processes 2009 Mar;80(3):325-33.
          pubmed: 19056474doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2008.11.002google scholar: lookup
        45. Okamoto-Barth S, Tomonaga M, Tanaka M, Matsuzawa T. Development of using experimenter-given cues in infant chimpanzees: longitudinal changes in behavior and cognitive development.. Dev Sci 2008 Jan;11(1):98-108.
          pubmed: 18171372doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00658.xgoogle scholar: lookup
        46. Anderson JR, Sallaberry P, Barbier H. Use Of Experimenter-Given Cues During Object Choice Tasks By Capuchin Monkeys. Anim Behav 49: 201–208.
        47. Povinelli DJ, Reaux JE, Bierschwale DT, Allain AD, Simon BB. Exploitation of pointing as a referential gesture in young children, but not adolescent chimpanzees. Cogn Dev 12: 327–365.
        48. Tomasello M, Call J, Gluckman A. Comprehension of novel communicative signs by apes and human children.. Child Dev 1997 Dec;68(6):1067-80.
          pubmed: 9418226
        49. Barth J, Reaux JE, Povinelli DJ. Chimpanzees' (Pan troglodytes) use of gaze cues in object-choice tasks: different methods yield different results.. Anim Cogn 2005 Apr;8(2):84-92.
          pubmed: 15449100doi: 10.1007/s10071-004-0235-xgoogle scholar: lookup
        50. Byrnit JT. Gorillas' (Gorilla gorilla) use of experimenter-given manual and facial cues in an object-choice task.. Anim Cogn 2009 Mar;12(2):401-4.
          pubmed: 18925419doi: 10.1007/s10071-008-0200-1google scholar: lookup
        51. Mulcahy NJ, Hedge V. Are great apes tested with an abject object-choice task?. Anim Behav 83: 313–321.
        52. Soproni K, Miklósi A, Topál J, Csányi V. Dogs' (Canis familiaris) responsiveness to human pointing gestures.. J Comp Psychol 2002 Mar;116(1):27-34.
          pubmed: 11926681doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.116.1.27google scholar: lookup
        53. Soproni K, Miklósi A, Topál J, Csányi V. Comprehension of human communicative signs in pet dogs (Canis familiaris).. J Comp Psychol 2001 Jun;115(2):122-6.
          pubmed: 11459158doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.115.2.122google scholar: lookup
        54. Hare B, Rosati A, Kaminski J, Brauer J, Call J. The domestication hypothesis for dogs' skills with human communication: a response to Udell, et al. (2008) and Wynne, et al. (2008). Anim Behav 79: E1–E6.
        55. Udell MAR, Dorey NR, Wynne CDL. Wolves outperform dogs in following human social cues. Anim Behav 76: 1767–1773.
        56. Udell MAR, Dorey NR, Wynne CDL. The performance of stray dogs (Canis familiaris) living in a shelter on human-guided object-choice tasks. Anim Behav 79: 717–725.
        57. Miklósi A, Pongrácz P, Lakatos G, Topál J, Csányi V. A comparative study of the use of visual communicative signals in interactions between dogs (Canis familiaris) and humans and cats (Felis catus) and humans.. J Comp Psychol 2005 May;119(2):179-86.
          pubmed: 15982161doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.119.2.179google scholar: lookup
        58. Albiach-Serrano A, Braeuer J, Cacchione T, Zickert N, Amici F. The effect of domestication and ontogeny in swine cognition (Sus scrofa scrofa and S. s. domestica). Appl Anim Behav Sci 141: 25–35.
        59. Krueger K, Flauger B, Farmer K, Maros K. Horses (Equus caballus) use human local enhancement cues and adjust to human attention.. Anim Cogn 2011 Mar;14(2):187-201.
          pubmed: 20845052doi: 10.1007/s10071-010-0352-7google scholar: lookup
        60. 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.
        61. Maros K, Gácsi M, Miklósi A. Comprehension of human pointing gestures in horses (Equus caballus).. Anim Cogn 2008 Jul;11(3):457-66.
          pubmed: 18247069doi: 10.1007/s10071-008-0136-5google scholar: lookup
        62. Schloegl C, Kotrschal K, Bugnyar T. Gaze following in common ravens, Corvus corax: ontogeny and habituation. Anim Behav 74: 769–778.
        63. 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.
          pubmed: 19521725doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0245-9google scholar: lookup
        64. 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.
          pubmed: 18455205doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2008.03.002google scholar: lookup
        65. Farmer K, Krueger K, Byrne RW. Visual laterality in the domestic horse (Equus caballus) interacting with humans.. Anim Cogn 2010 Mar;13(2):229-38.
          pubmed: 19618222doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0260-xgoogle scholar: lookup
        66. Proops L, McComb K. Cross-modal individual recognition in domestic horses (Equus caballus) extends to familiar humans.. Proc Biol Sci 2012 Aug 22;279(1741):3131-8.
          pmc: PMC3385734pubmed: 22593108doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.0626google scholar: lookup
        67. Udell MA, Dorey NR, Wynne CD. What did domestication do to dogs? A new account of dogs' sensitivity to human actions.. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 2010 May;85(2):327-45.
          pubmed: 19961472doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185x.2009.00104.xgoogle scholar: lookup
        68. Gácsi M, Györi B, Virányi Z, Kubinyi E, Range F, Belényi B, Miklósi A. Explaining dog wolf differences in utilizing human pointing gestures: selection for synergistic shifts in the development of some social skills.. PLoS One 2009 Aug 28;4(8):e6584.
          pmc: PMC2719091pubmed: 19714197doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006584google scholar: lookup
        69. Hare B, Plyusnina I, Ignacio N, Schepina O, Stepika A, Wrangham R, Trut L. Social cognitive evolution in captive foxes is a correlated by-product of experimental domestication.. Curr Biol 2005 Feb 8;15(3):226-30.
          pubmed: 15694305doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2005.01.040google scholar: lookup
        70. Gácsi M, Kara E, Belényi B, Topál J, Miklósi A. The effect of development and individual differences in pointing comprehension of dogs.. Anim Cogn 2009 May;12(3):471-9.
          pubmed: 19130102doi: 10.1007/s10071-008-0208-6google scholar: lookup
        71. Virányi Z, Gácsi M, Kubinyi E, Topál J, Belényi B, Ujfalussy D, Miklósi A. Comprehension of human pointing gestures in young human-reared wolves (Canis lupus) and dogs (Canis familiaris).. Anim Cogn 2008 Jul;11(3):373-87.
          pubmed: 18183437doi: 10.1007/s10071-007-0127-ygoogle scholar: lookup

        Citations

        This article has been cited 14 times.
        Subscribe to our newsletter
        Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.