Don't Swat That Fly! It May Have Just Decided to Fly The Wrong Way

I would like to conclude my blog with a cool article I discovered about an unusual test subject. So although most if not all of my articles have been about the cute and furries of the animal kingdom, I would like to present to you another test subject that has changed the way scientists look at animal cognition. It is the the fruit fly, Drosophilia  melanogaster. This small and not so cute test subject has actually shown similar decision-making skills to that of humans! Researcher Dr. Gero Miesenböck, a neuroscientist at the University of Oxford has discovered that the average fruit fly takes longer amounts of time to make more difficult decisions just like humans do. When humans come upon a perceptual decision that is harder, they need more time for the brain to process all of the information, and fruit flies apparently do the same. To test this, Oxford researchers placed the fruit flies in bifurcated chambers filled on both sides with an odor they had been taught to avoid. When the odor was stronger on one side the flies easily chose the chamber with the weaker odor to inhabit. However when the odors were equally subtle the flies took longer to make a decision, and were more prone to make the wrong choice. This surprised scientists because they originally thought that the flies would act impulsively. This study has shown that because the process in fruit flies so closely mimics decision making in people the same mathematical models used to describe the actions of deliberating people can be used to predict a fly’s behavior. The common link between fly and human mental activity appears to be FOXP. FOXP is a gene that is closely associated with cognitive development and language in humans. A defective copy of this gene is linked to slower decision making skills, low intelligence, and language problems in humans. The question is however, is this gene related to gathering information through other senses like touch or eyesight? Or is it specific to this particular perceptual problem (olfactory decision-making problems)? More research is needed to answer these problems and scientists are eager to continue it. If flies are able to make decisions like us, what other species may be capable of similar cognitive processes to humans? It certainly makes you rethink about swatting that annoying buzzing fly in your home!





References 

DasGupta, S, Ferreira, C, & Miesenböck, G 2014, 'FoxP influences the speed and accuaracy of a
perceptual decision in Drosophila', Science, vol. 344, pp. 901-904.

Do Dogs Have A Moral Code?

Extensive research has gone into the study of dogs because of how close we as humans are to them. They are our pets, family members, and friends. Recent research however, has suggested a very bold and interesting idea that dogs actually have a moral code. This come from the work of Marc Bekoff who is a Cognitive ethologist and professor at the University of Colorado in Boulder. He has been studying dogs for many years and is keen about understanding how dogs communicate with each other through play. For example, when looking at dogs at a dog park, some dogs will display what is known as a "play bow", which is used as an instigation, clarification, warning, and an apology. Dogs will often do this before lunging at another dog or nipping at them as if to say "I am just trying to play with you not hurt you" or " I didn't mean to push you over, I am sorry". These actions seem to suggest some sort of moral code while playing. To test this, Bekoff has analyzed years of videotaped data of animals playing to look for certain body language and cues that dogs give each other to send them a message as well as maintain tight social bonds. He found that canines "role-reverse" or "self-handicap" during play, which is when a larger dog will role on their back so that a smaller dog will have an advantage and the larger one will not jump on the smaller one as many times as the smaller one jumps on the larger one. He noticed that certain "rules" are maintained and must be followed and a dog will signal another dog if these rules are broken or are not being followed. These signals can range from a small eye squint to a certain dog or certain group members not engaging in acts of play when one member is being too rough. Another example is that dogs will often not begin to play with another dog until they have their attention by running into their field of view or tugging on their ear suggesting that dogs know when they are not being paid attention to. Bekoff's work has suggested a much deeper intuition and moral standing than previously thought, although I am sure most if not all dog owners knew there dog had this ability by now.

References

Bekoff, M 1995, 'Play signals as punctuation, The structure of social play in canids', Behaviour, vol. 132, pp. 419-429.

Patience Is A Virtue, Or Is It?

Researcher Jeffrey Stevens has been studying primates to better understand how humans 
evolved patience. He primarily studied chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans to figure out just how the trait of patience evolved. He has figured out that patience isn't just a trait however, but that it has actually evolved through genes. Natural selection has shaped levels of patience in different species based on the different types of problems that different animals face. Therefore, patience is also a species specific quality that is passed on from generation to generation. Stevens has discovered that patience depends on body mass, brain size, lifespan, and home ranges and increases as we go higher up the primate classification order. For instance, a chimpanzee will wait approximately 2 minutes for a reward (the longest of any of the primate species studied) whereas a cotton-top tamarin will wait about 8 seconds until they opt for a smaller and more immediate reward. Stevens tested his subjects by having them choose between a tray with 2 grapes that they could choose sooner, or a tray of 8 grapes that they could have later. The times to wait to have the tray of 8 grapes was gradually increased until the subject reached an "indifference point" when it opted for the smaller, immediate reward instead of waiting. Other parameters have listed cognitive ability as well as social complexity as necessary components of patience, however Stevens negates these hypotheses. This is because  he found no correlation between patience levels and an animal's relative brain size compared to its body size, the measure he used to quantify cognitive ability as well as no correlations between species' social group sizes and their patience levels. The only factor that correlated with patience was metabolic rate, and body mass. This is due to the fact that if you have a faster metabolic rate than you need food faster and are less likely to be able to wait for it to survive. This is also the theory behind how humans evolved patience yet more research needs to be conducted. 

References

Rosati, A, Stevens, J, Hare, B, & Hauser, M 2007, 'The evolutionary origins of human
patience: Temporal preferences in chimpanzees, bonobos, and human adults', Current Biology, vol. 17, pp. 1663-1668.

When Parenting Doesn't Work

Because of the lecture this week, I figured the was a very appropriate (though somewhat depressing) topic to discuss. I recently read an article about occurrences of infanticide that have recently occurred in two very different animal species in zoos. The article begins by describing the cutest and newest addition to the sloth bear (think Baloo from the "Jungle Book") captive community in the United States. However, the interesting part about this baby bear is that she is the only surviving sibling out of three that were born at the Smithsonian National Zoo. When she and her siblings were born, her mother ate the first sibling (a still born), and killed the second cub. Zookeepers later realized after doing a necropsy on the second cub was that it had parasites in its intestines. They then decided to remove the third cub for her own safety because she too was ill. She is now under 24 hour care by zookeepers as they now become full time "momma bears". Although this is a sad case that many humans don't like to see, it is a natural process that can and does occurs in zoos in many animal species. Infanticide is about making sure the strongest offspring survive, which entails the killing of infants by the mother or father. This can be because the offspring were too weak, sick, or because the mother needs the nutrients for other offspring or to get pregnant again. Thankfully the baby sloth bear is in good hands and is now on to a healthy happy life. The second occurrence of infanticide came from a cheetah mother named Ally, who gave birth this past winter to four healthy cubs at the National Zoo. However, after three weeks of a seemingly healthy start to life, the new mother became nervous and began carrying her cubs in and out of the den quite frequently. This caused deep wounds in the shoulders and scruffs of the new cubs, which led to infections. The first cub died before the zookeepers could reach it while the remaining three have been treated with multiple surgeries and are now under constant supervision and separated from their mother. The zookeepers now hope to have these three cubs fostered by another cheetah named Mitty, who has six cubs of her own. Cheetah adoptions happen in the wild as well, when a mother is killed another female will sometimes take in and adopt remaining cubs. The three cubs are now on their way to a better and more promising life and hopefully a new mum and siblings. Although infanticide is a grim topic, it is explained by nature that some may not make it and for the future reproductive success of the parents it is an easy way out. It is quite common in nature in many species of both birds and mammals and unless humans intervene, it does even occur in captive situations like zoos. Infanticide is the darker side of parenting, although its purpose in nature is to benefit the future generations of species in the end.

Figure 1. One of the baby cheetahs undergoing a routine bandage change to its wounds. 

Figure 2. The two-month old baby sloth bear giving the camera a "kiss". 

References

Jacobsen, R. 2014. Why some animals eat their young. Science.

Sneaky Birds and Intelligent Vocalizations

Figure 1. A Fork-tailed Drongo Bird. 

Fork-tailed Drongo birds in Africa have evolved a very interesting and intelligent way of getting food. They are able to mimic the calls of other species, like birds and even meerkats. So when they are feeling a bit hungry and spot another animal with a tasty morsel, they cleverly mimic the alarm calls of that animal then retrieve the food when it is left behind by that animal running for its life. Ornithologists already knew the skilled vocal thieves were able to mimic other animal's alarm calls, however they wanted to know how the species kept their victims from habituating to their deceptive behavior. So they spent more than 800 hours in the field, watching 64 Drongo birds and recording their calls and behaviors. Through this, the researchers witnessed around 700 attempted food robberies. They realized, after analyzing their data, that the Drongo's success is actually quite complicated. These birds are able to produce a large number of mimicked alarm calls, some individuals had a repertoire of up to 30 calls! Six of these alarm calls are used within their own species, which other animals pick up and use the birds as their own personal bodyguards warning them of danger. Throughout the day, Drongos will pick a victim and then report a number of truths and lies, warning the individual of real and fake predators while also switching between their own species warning calls and mimicked ones. To figure out how effective this system was, researchers played a number of different alarms to a species of Pied babblers that are often a target species for the Drongos. They played drongo alarms, drongo-mimicking-babbler alarms, true babbler alarms and warning calls from starlings. The Pied Babblers reacted to their own species warning calls the most but also reacted to the Drongos warning calls as well, just not as frequently. By mixing up which species to victimize, the Drongos have quite an intelligent and successful system until the species becomes aware of what these sneaky birds are up to. Although this example is not necessarily in the realm of cognition, it sure sparks an interesting idea of how the Fork-tailed Drongo bird learns other species alarm calls and is able to judge just exactly when to use the call.

Figure 2. A Pied Babbler. 

References:
Nuwer, R 2014, 'This bird tricks other animals into handing over their meals', Smithsonian. 

Do Bigger Brains Mean Better Self Control?

According to a recent study, scientists believe that brain size may be attributed to better self control. A total of 36 species tested suggested that ecology and brain size play direct roles in cognitive evolution. MacLean and his colleagues conducted two tests for self control in species ranging from elephants to birds to primates. In the first test, researchers would repeatedly hide a piece of food in one area where the animal could see, until the animal was used to finding the food in that particular spot. The researchers then hid the food in a different place, still where the animal could see it. If the animal chose the new area to look for the food the researchers marked it as the animal having exercised self control. This is because they believed the animal had "the ability to inhibit a prepotent but ultimately counter-productive behavior." In the second test, researchers hid food in an opaque container with a hole in the back for the animals to reach the tasty treat. Once the animals had gotten used to this task, the opaque container was switched with a transparent one. If the animals reached in the hole for the food instead of trying to reach through the container they were believed to have self control. The researchers then compared the results of the tests to each animal's "absolute" brain size and with brain size relative to their body size. The great apes showed good self control along with the carnivores (dogs and wolves). Elephants showed poor self control yet only completed one of the tests. These results highlight interesting ecological and evolutionary differences between the species when they are compared to each other. Overall, species with larger brain sizes tended to do better than species with smaller brain sizes (absolute brain size). However, brain size was not linked to self control because the researchers did not have data on the degree of "folding" of each species' brain which is correlated with intelligence as well. The researchers also looked at the diets and social behaviors of each species tested and found that the richer the diet the better self control the species had in general, such as the great apes. Although they did not test humans, it would be interesting for them to do in the future, as well as expand their species repertoire.

References

MacLean, E 2014 'Animals with bigger brains have more self-control', LiveScience.

Do dogs contract our yawns?: How Dogs Respond to Human Yawns

You know when you see someone else in the classroom yawn you try hard to ignore it, yet several seconds later you too yawn? Contagious yawning has been suggested to communicate sleepiness and stress to other group members in a social situation as well as to provoke arousal in oneself when environmental stimuli does not offer any. Researchers have been wondering whether dogs experience contagious yawning as well, do to their high levels of social communicative skills between each other as well as humans. A study by Buttner and Strasser (2014) was conducted to test whether shelter dogs also respond to human yawns and therefore exhibit contagious yawning. They tested 60 shelter dogs that were exposed to both yawning and non-yawning control stimuli with an unfamiliar person. They also took salivary cortisol samples before and after the experiment from each dog to see whether arousal played a role in contagious yawning. They found that only 12 dogs seemed to yawn in response to the human yawning and no significant findings for the whole population. And that the dogs who did seem to yawn in response did have raised cortisol levels after the experiment compared to their baseline. Although the findings were not significant, yawning between humans and dogs may still be used as a communicative mechanism for arousal states or stress depending on the context and environment.

Reference

Buttner, A, & Strasser, R 2014, 'Contagious yawning, social cognition, and arousal: an investigation of the processes underlying shelter dogs’ responses to human yawns', Animal Cognition, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 95-104.

Can Pigeons Help You Do Laundry?

Well probably not. But they can help you distinguish different items from each other. A study by Wasserman and Castro (2014) found that pigeons can actually place everyday things into categories as well as tell what visual information is new, not new, or important. This is known as selective attention and occurs because of all the commotion and hustle and bustle around us. Because people and animals cannot attend to all properties in our environments, we use selective attention to place things into categories to tease out what is the most important stimuli to pay attention to. This is a vital skill to have because all animals need to be able to tell the difference between a friend, foe, or food for daily survival. The study by Wasserman and Castro (2014) used pigeons that would peck on a screen that had two sets of four computer-generated images such as stars, spirals, and bubbles. The pigeons would then distinguish one set from the other. They found that the pigeons could distinguish the difference between these sets and that learning about an object's relevant characteristics and using its characteristics to categorize it go together. Researchers have even been able to extend this ability to lizards and goldfish making for an interesting clue into the world of animal cognition.

References

Wasserman, E & Castro, L 2014, 'Pigeons' tracking of relevant attributes in categorization learning', Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition.

learning about an object's relevant characteristics and using those characteristics to categorize it go hand-in-hand.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-04-pigeons-animals-everyday-categories-humans.html#jCp

learning about an object's relevant characteristics and using those characteristics to categorize it go hand-in-hand.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-04-pigeons-animals-everyday-categories-humans.html#jCp

learning about an object's relevant characteristics and using those characteristics to categorize it go hand-in-hand.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-04-pigeons-animals-everyday-categories-humans.html#jCp

presented the birds with a touchscreen containing two sets of four computer-generated images—such as stars, spirals, and bubbles.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-04-pigeons-animals-everyday-categories-humans.html#jCp

presented the birds with a touchscreen containing two sets of four computer-generated images—such as stars, spirals, and bubbles.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-04-pigeons-animals-everyday-categories-humans.html#jCp

presented the birds with a touchscreen containing two sets of four computer-generated images—such as stars, spirals, and bubbles.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-04-pigeons-animals-everyday-categories-humans.html#jCp

Do Dogs Feel Guilt?

One aspect of the study of animal cognition is whether animals have emotions like humans. There is the primary set of emotions, such as fear and happiness, and the second set of emotions, such as guilt and pride. The difference between these sets of emotions is the fact that animals must have the theory of mind or in other words the ability to know that other humans/animals have different minds than we do and feel and think differently than we do. Humans develop this ability at about the age of 3 years old and scientists have been trying to see if this ability also exists in other animal species. Most recently, there have been numerous studies on the ability of dogs to have certain emotions like guilt. Most dog owners believe that their dogs feel guilt and display guilty behavior when they know they have done something wrong. However, the recent study by Hecht et al. (2012) went into detail about whether dogs display guilty behavior when they greet their owners, yet the tests confirmed that only by chance could owners actually tell if their dog had eaten a "forbidden" biscuit when they left the room or not. Most likely though it is actually just the dog's reaction to their owner's negative reaction towards them after they have done something naughty. For instance, if the dog is caught doing something it shouldn't be, the owner will most likely raise their voice and yell at the dog. This then sends the dog into a submissive stance which gives the impression of "I am sorry for whatever I did". Many times when this happens the owner stops yelling at the dog, so the dog then associates the submissive stance with having the negative reaction of the owner decrease. Although dogs may not feel guilt, it has not stopped the ability of people to share funny posts of their dog's reactions to what they do wrong. A website has even been created to post these funny incidents of dogs behaving poorly: http://www.dogshaming.com/

Reference

Hecht, J, Miklosi, A, & Gacsi, M 2012, ‘Behavioral assessment and owner perceptions of behaviors associated with guilt in dogs’, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol. 139, no. 2, pp. 134-142.  

Proud Papas: Faithfulness and Parenting

Although we like to assume our partners will always be faithful, most if not all people have had (or will have) more than one partner in their lifetime. This is also true for the most of the rest of the animal kingdom. Some species (such as birds) have social monogamous pairs, but different sexual partners. There are however, a small number of species that do actually stay faithful both sexually and socially to their partners for their whole lives. Therefore, I present what some people say is the most monogamous primate in the world the Owl Monkey!

This cute little creature has been shown to not only have socially monogamous pairs, but also genetically monogamous ones. To test this, researchers (Huck et al. 2014) collected samples from 128 individual monkeys living in 29 groups or as solitary individuals. They collaborated behavioral field observations with genetic samples from 35 infants born to 17 reproducing pairs and found that every infant was indeed the offspring of the reproducing pair. There was no evidence of extra-pair paternity. This is most likely due to the high level of involvement males have in the caring for their young. They play with them, feed them, and carry them on their backs. Without the high level of commitment from these proud papas, the intense faithfulness these guys show would not make sense (at least in the animal world). It even surprised the researchers by how faithful these small primates are and it seems to give them hope that monogamy (even in the animal world) may be useful and sometimes even preferred.

References

Huck, M., Fernandez-Duque, E., Babb, P. and Schurr, T. 2014. Correlates of genetic monogamy in socially monogamous mammals: insights from Azara's owl monkeys. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281(1782).

Man's Best Friend May Be Able to Understand Us Better Than We Think

The communicative and social abilities of dogs are quite unique in the animal kingdom. Dogs are used in many aspects of human life including as tools: smelling dangerous explosives in hidden cargo, and as family members: treated with as much love and care as someone we share our own DNA with. Studies have shown that dogs’ social skills are unusually skilled, especially when it comes to cooperation and communication with humans. A study by Brian Hare illustrated the fact that dogs have an uncanny ability to read human social skills and respond in ways that even our closest ape relatives do not. Some of the theories behind this were that dogs are reared in human environments and learn from us. Researchers tested this theory and found that puppies that were litter raised (meaning had little to no human contact) and puppies raised in human homes both had the same ability to use a human pointing and gaze cue. They also tested dogs in different age groups and found that puppies as young as 9 weeks old even had this ability and did just as well as much older dogs. Another theory was that dogs inherited their social skills from wolves, which are an extremely social species. However, wolf puppies raised by humans have shown to be much less able to find hidden food when given cues by humans, such as pointing, compared to their domesticated counterparts. And finally, the last theory is convergent evolution between humans and dogs. This theory has been tested by a group of scientists that reared fox kits for their approachability and friendliness towards humans. Not only did they find that the more domesticated the foxes became the more their temperament changed, but also that that physical demeanor changed. The foxes began wagging their tails and had ears that drooped. Their coat colors also changed and became more varied. Therefore, the convergent evolution theory seems to be the closest explanation for domesticated dog's abilities to follow social cues from humans. Experiments are now being conducted on dogs to show the extent to which dogs are able to read human behavior compared to chimpanzees and other primates. They are being tested on cooperation with humans, as well as problem solving using humans as an aid. These experiments help prove that domestication and selection may play a much larger role in how humans and animals evolve over time. 

References

Plyusnina, I., Oskina, I. and Trut, L. 1991. An analysis of fear and aggression during early development of behaviour in silver foxes (Vulpes vulpes). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 32 (2), pp. 253--268.

Hare, B. and Tomasello, M. 2005. Human-like social skills in dogs?. Trends in cognitive sciences, 9 (9), pp. 439--444.



 

Imagination: Key to What Seperates Humans from Animals

Animal cognition is a hot topic in the scientific community today. It has many implications for how we treat animals in daily life and for what purposes we use them. Scientists have been trying to figure out the extent to which humans and animals are different, as well as similar in their cognitive abilities. However, a new book by Thomas Suddendorf revealed that it may just be the fact that humans can imagine things that are not even possible in our own world that separates us from our primate counterparts. This skill is called nested scenario building. From the time we are little, humans spend an extensive amount of time playing pretend and having imaginary adventures with other friends who can do the same. As we get older, our abilities are able to grow and expand to imagine our futures, create plans, solve complex problems, and connect with others on a deep cognitive level. These abilities provide the basis to understand others and therefore pledge cooperation from others in our social circles. We can learn from others, understand what they are feeling, and express how we are feeling to them. The ability to cooperate and learn from others has also been found in primates, however once humans pass the age of 2 so do our mental abilities. The ability  to predict the future and different outcomes in a situation seems to be a solely human characteristic and cognitive skill. Our drive to do nested scenario building and connect with other scenario-building minds may be the key to what separates humans from animals and in the end, is what has driven our evolution from past ancestors.

 Maldonado, J. (2013). The Gap: The Science of What Separates Us from Other Animals. Psych Central. Retrieved on March 4, 2014, from http://psychcentral.com/lib/the-gap-the-science-of-what-separates-us-from-other-animals/00018372