Animal Cognition

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 187–201 | Cite as

Horses (Equus caballus) use human local enhancement cues and adjust to human attention

  • Konstanze Krueger
  • Birgit Flauger
  • Kate Farmer
  • Katalin Maros
Original Paper

Abstract

This study evaluates the horse (Equus caballus) use of human local enhancement cues and reaction to human attention when making feeding decisions. The superior performance of dogs in observing human states of attention suggests this ability evolved with domestication. However, some species show an improved ability to read human cues through socialization and training. We observed 60 horses approach a bucket with feed in a three-way object-choice task when confronted with (a) an unfamiliar or (b) a familiar person in 4 different situations: (1) squatting behind the bucket, facing the horse (2) standing behind the bucket, facing the horse (3) standing behind the bucket in a back-turned position, gazing away from the horse and (4) standing a few meters from the bucket in a distant, back-turned position, again gazing away from the horse. Additionally, postures 1 and 2 were tested both with the person looking permanently at the horse and with the person alternating their gaze between the horse and the bucket. When the person remained behind the correct bucket, it was chosen significantly above chance. However, when the test person was turned and distant from the buckets, the horses’ performance deteriorated. In the turned person situations, the horses approached a familiar person and walked towards their focus of attention significantly more often than with an unfamiliar person. Additionally, in the squatting and standing person situations, some horses approached the person before approaching the correct bucket. This happened more with a familiar person. We therefore conclude that horses can use humans as a local enhancement cue independently of their body posture or gaze consistency when the persons remain close to the food source and that horses seem to orientate on the attention of familiar more than of unfamiliar persons. We suggest that socialization and training improve the ability of horses to read human cues.

Keywords

Human–horse interaction Horse Attention-reading Position Familiarity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Jürgen Heinze, Katherine Albro Houpt and Susanne Waiblinger for theoretical support, Knut Krüger for helping with and Charlotte Hemelrijk for further advice for statistical analyses, as well as Julia Scharrer, Tobias Haertinger, Marion Füssel, Gudrun Schneider, Andreas Sailer, Anja Schlecht, Magdalena Schneider, and all the horse owners for the assistance at the tests. We also thank three anonymous referees for their help in improving earlier versions of the manuscript. The study was supported by an excellence grant from the Bavarian Government, by a HWP II grant from the University of Regensburg, and by the Dr. Peter Deubner Stiftung.

References

  1. Bräuer J, Call J, Tomasello M (2004) Visual perspective taking in dogs (Canis familiaris) in the presence of barriers. Appl Anim Behav Sci 88:299–317. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2004.03.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Breuer K, Hemsworth PH, Coleman GJ (2003) The effect of positive or negative handling on the behavioural and physiological responses of nonlactating heifers. Appl Anim Behav Sci 84:3–22. doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00146-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bugnyar T, Stöwe M, Heinrich B (2004) Ravens, Corvus corax, follow gaze direction of humans around obstacles. Proc Roy Soc Lond B Biol Sci 271:1331–1336. doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2738 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Call J, Brauer J, Kaminski J, Tomasello M (2003) Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) are sensitive to the attentional state of humans. J Comp Psychol 117:257–263. doi:10.1037/0735-7036.117.3.257 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Christensen JW, Keeling LJ, Nielsen BL (2005) Responses of horses to novel visual, olfactory and auditory stimuli. Appl Anim Behav Sci 93:53–65. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2005.06.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clutton-Brock J (1981) Domesticated animals from early times. University of Texas Press, AustinGoogle Scholar
  7. Farmer K, Krueger K, Byrne R (2010) Visual laterality in the domestic horse (Equus caballus) interacting with humans. Anim Cogn 13:229–238. doi:10.1007/s10071-009-0260-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Gácsi M, Miklósi Á, Varga O, Topál J, Csányi V (2004) Are readers of our face readers of our minds? Dogs (Canis familiaris) show situation-dependent recognition of human’s attention. Anim Cogn 7:144–153. doi:10.1007/s10071-003-0205-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Gácsi M, Győri B, Miklósi Á, Virányi Z, Kubinyi E, Topál J, Csányi V (2005) Species-specific differences and similarities in the behavior of hand-raised dog and wolf pups in social situations with humans. Dev Psychobiol 47:111–122. doi:10.1002/dev.20082 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gácsi M, Kara E, Belényi B, Topál J, Miklósi Á (2009a) The effect of development and individual differences in pointing comprehension of dogs. Anim Cogn 12:471–479. doi:10.1007/s10071-008-0208-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Gácsi M, Győri B, Virányi Z, Kubinyi E, Range F, Belényi B, Miklósi A (2009b) Explaining dog wolf differences in utilizing human pointing gestures: selection for synergistic shifts in the development of some social skills. PLoS One 4:e6584. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006584 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gaunet F (2008) How do guide dogs of blind owners and pet dogs of sighted owners (Canis familiaris) ask their owners for food? Anim Cogn 11:475–483. doi:10.1007/s10071-008-0138-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Giret N, Miklósi Á, Kreutzer M, Bovet D (2009) Use of experimenter-given cues by African gray parrots (Psittacus erithacus). Anim Cogn 12:1–10. doi:10.1007/s10071-008-0163-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Goodwin D (2002) Horse behaviour: evolution, domestication and feralisation. The Welfare of Horses. pp 1–18. doi: 10.1007/978-0-306-48215-1_1
  15. Griffiths SW, Brockmark S, Höjesjö J, Johnsson JI (2004) Coping with divided attention: the advantage of familiarity. Proc Roy Soc Lond B Biol Sci 271:695–699. doi:10.1098/rspb.2003.2648 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanggi EB (1999) Categorization learning in horses (Equus caballus). J Comp Psychol 113:243–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hanggi EB, Ingersoll JF (2009) Long-term memory for categories and concepts in horses (Equus caballus). Anim Cogn 13:451–462. doi:10.1007/s10071-008-0205-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hare B (2001) Can competitive paradigms increase the validity of experiments on primate social cognition? Anim Cogn 4:269–280. doi:10.1007/s100710100084 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hare B, Brown M, Williamson C, Tomasello M (2002) The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science 298:1634–1636. doi:10.1126/science.1072702 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hare B, Plyusnina I, Ignacio N, Schepina O, Stepika A, Wrangham R, Trut L (2005) Social cognitive evolution in captive foxes is a correlated by-product of experimental domestication. Curr Biol 15:226–230. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2005.01.040 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hausberger M, Muller C (2002) A brief note on some possible factors involved in the reactions of horses to humans. Appl Anim Behav Sci 76:339–344. doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00016-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hausberger M, Bruderer C, Le Scolan N, Pierre J-S (2004) Interplay between environmental and genetic factors in temperament/personality traits in horses (Equus caballus). J Comp Psychol 118:434–446. doi:10.1037/0735-7036.118.4.434 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hausberger M, Roche H, Henry S, Visser EK (2008) A review of the human-horse relationship. Appl Anim Behav Sci 109:1–24. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2007.04.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hayes K (1988) Temperament tip-offs. Horse Rider 11:47–84Google Scholar
  25. Henry S, Hemery D, Richard M-A, Hausberger M (2005) Human-mare relationships and behaviour of foals toward humans. Appl Anim Behav Sci 93:341–362. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2005.01.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Henry S, Richard-Yris M-A, Hausberger M (2006) Influence of various early human-foal interferences on subsequent human-foal relationship. Dev Psychobiol 48:712–718. doi:10.1002/dev.20189 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70Google Scholar
  28. Hostetter AB, Cantero M, Hopkins WD (2001) Differential use of vocal and gestural communication by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in response to the attentional status of a human (Homo sapiens). J Comp Psychol 115:337–343CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Hostetter AB, Russell JL, Freeman H, Hopkins WD (2007) Now you see me, now you don’t: evidence that chimpanzees understand the role of the eyes in attention. Anim Cogn 10:55–62. doi:10.1007/s10071-006-0031-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Houpt K, Kusunose R (2000) Genetics of behaviour. In: Bowling AT, Ruvinsky A (eds) The genetics of the horse. CABI Publishing, New York, pp 281–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Itakura S (2004) Gaze following and joint visual attention in nonhuman animals. Jpn Psychol Res 3:216–226. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5584.2004.00253.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Itakura S, Agnetta B, Hare B, Tomasello M (2001) Chimpanzee use of human and conspecific social cues to locate hidden food. Dev Sci 2:448–456. doi:10.1111/1467-7687.00089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ittyerah M, Gaunet F (2009) The response of guide dogs and pet dogs (Canis Familiaris) to cues of human referential communication (pointing and gaze). Anim Cogn 12:257–265. doi:10.1007/s10071-008-0188-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Jacobs F (1825) Xenophons Buch über die Reitkunst. Perthes, GothaGoogle Scholar
  35. Kaminski J, Call J, Tomasello M (2004) Body orientation and face orientation: two factors controlling apes’ behavior from humans. Anim Cogn 7:216–223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Kaminski J, Riedel J, Call J, Tomasello M (2005) Domestic goats, Capra hircus, follow gaze direction and use social cues in an object choice task. Anim Behav 69:11–18. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.05.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kaplan G, Rogers LJ (2002) Patterns of gazing in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). Int J Primatol 23:501–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Krueger K (2007) Behaviour of horses in the “round pen technique”. Appl Anim Behav Sci 104:162–170. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krueger K, Heinze J (2008) Horse sense: social status of horses (Equus caballus) affects their likelihood of copying other horses` behavior. Anim Cogn 11:431–439. doi:10.1007/s10071-007-0133-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Lansade L, Bouissou M-F (2008) Reactivity to humans: a temperament trait of horses which is stable across time and situations. Appl Anim Behav Sci 114:492–508. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2008.04.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lansade L, Bertrand M, Boivin X, Bouissou M-F (2004) Effects of handling at weaning on manageability and reactivity of foals. Appl Anim Behav Sci 87:131–149. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2003.12.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lansade L, Bertrand M, Bouissou M-F (2005) Effects of neonatal handling on subsequent manageability, reactivity and learning ability of foals. Appl Anim Behav Sci 92:143–158. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2004.10.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mal ME, McCall CA, Newland C, Cummins KA (1993) Evaluation of a one-trial learning apparatus to test learning ability in weanling horses. Appl Anim Behav Sci 35:305–311. doi:10.1016/0168-1591(93)90082-Z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Maros K, Gácsi M, Miklósi Á (2008) Comprehension of human pointing gestures in horses (Equus caballus). Anim Cogn 11:457–466. doi:10.1007/s10071-008-0136-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. McKinley J, Sambrook TD (2000) Use of human-given cues by domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and horses (Equus caballus). Anim Cogn 3:13–22. doi:10.1007/s100710050046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Miklósi Á, Kubinyi E, Topál J, Gácsi M, Virányi Z, Csányi V (2003) A simple reason for a big difference: wolves do not look back at humans, but dogs do. Curr Biol 13:763–766. doi:10.1016/S0960-9822(03)00263-X CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Miklósi Á, Pongrácz P, Lakatos G, Topál J, Csányi V (2005) 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 119:179–186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Miller R, Lamb R (2005) The revolution in horsemanship: and what it means to mankind. The Lyons Press, GuilfordGoogle Scholar
  49. Pack AA, Herman LM (2004) Bottlenosed dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) comprehend the referent of both static and dynamic human gazing and pointing in an object-choice task. J Comp Psychol 118:160–171. doi:10.1037/0735-7036.118.2.160 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Pfungst O (1907) Der Kluge Hans. Ein Beitrag zur nichtverbalen Kommunikation. Frankfurter Fachbuchhandlung für Psychologie, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  51. Povinelli DJ, Eddy TJ (1996) What young chimpanzees know about seeing. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p 216Google Scholar
  52. Povinelli DJ, Vonk J (2003) Chimpanzee minds: suspiciously human? Trends Cogn Sci 7:157–160. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00053-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Proops L, McComb K (2010) Attributing attention: the use of human-given cues by domestic horses (Equus caballus). Anim Cogn 13:197–205. doi:10.1007/s10071-009-0257-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Proops L, Walton M, McComb K (2010) 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.2010.02.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rappolt GA, John J, Thompson NS (1979) Canine responses to familiar and unfamiliar humans. Aggress Behav 5:155–161. doi:10.1002/1098-2337(1979)5:2<155:AID-AB2480050206>3.0.CO;2-D CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rousing T, Waiblinger S (2004) Evaluation of on-farm methods for testing the human-animal relationship in dairy herds with cubicle loose housing systems–test-retest and inter-observer reliability and consistency to familiarity of test person. Appl Anim Behav Sci 85:215–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Scheumann M, Call J (2004) The use of experimenter-given cues by South African fur seals (Arctocephalus pusillus). Anim Cogn 7:224–230. doi:10.1007/s10071-004-0216-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Schloegl C, Kotrschal K, Bugnyar T (2008) Modifying the object-choice task: is the way you look important for ravens? Behav Process 77:61–65. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2007.06.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schwab C, Huber L (2006) Obey or not obey? Dogs (Canis familiaris) behave differently in response to attentional states of their owners. J Comp Psychol 120:169–175. doi:10.1037/0735-7036.120.3.169 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Shapiro AD, Janik VM, Slater PJB (2003) A gray seal’s (Halichoerus grypus) responses to experimenter-given pointing and directional cues. J Comp Psychol 117:355–362. doi:10.1037/0735-7036.117.4.355 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Slingerland LI, Robben JH, Schaafsma I, Kooistra HS (2008) Response of cats to familiar and unfamiliar human contact using continuous direct arterial blood pressure measurement. Res Vet Sci 85:575–582. doi:10.1016/j.rvsc.2007.12.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Stone SM (2010) Human facial discrimination in horses: can they tell us apart? Anim Cogn 13:51–61. doi:10.1007/s10071-009-0244-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Foundation for statistical computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  64. Theall LA, Povinelli DJ (1999) Do chimpanzees tailor their gestural signals to fit the attentional states of others? Anim Cogn 2:207–214. doi:10.1007/s100710050041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tomasello M, Call J, Hare B (2003) Chimpanzees understand psychological states–the question is which ones and to what extent. Trends Cogn Sci 7:153–156. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00035-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Tschudin AJ-PC (2001) ‘Mindreading’ Mammals? Attribution of belief tasks with dolphins. Anim Welf 10:119–127Google Scholar
  67. Udell MAR, Dorey NR, Wynne CDL (2008) Wolves outperform dogs in following human social cues. Anim Behav 76:1767–1773. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.07.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Virányi Z, Topál J, Gácsi M, Miklósi Á, Csányi V (2004) Dogs respond appropriately to cues of humans’ attentional focus. Behav Process 66:161–172. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2004.01.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Virányi Z, Range F, Huber L (2008) Attentiveness toward others and social learning in domestic dogs. In: Röska-hardy LS, Neumann-held E (eds) Learning from Animals?: Examining the nature of human uniqueness. Psychology Press, New York, pp 141–154Google Scholar
  70. Visser EK, van Reenen CG, Hopster H, Schilder MBH, Knaap JH, Barneveld A, Blokhuis HJ (2001) Quantifying aspects of young horses’ temperament: consistency of behavioural variables. Appl Anim Behav Sci 74:241–258. doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00177-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Visser EK, van Reenen CG, van der Werf JTN, Schilder MBH, Knaap JH, Barneveld A, Blokhuis HJ (2002) Heart rate and heart rate variability during a novel object test and a handling test in young horses. Physiol Behav 76:289–296. doi:10.1016/S0031-9384(02)00698-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Visser EK, van Reenen CG, Rundgren M, Zetterqvist M, Morgan K, Blokhuis HJ (2003) Responses of horses in behavioural tests correlate with temperament assessed by riders. Equine Vet J 35:176–183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Konstanze Krueger
    • 1
  • Birgit Flauger
    • 1
  • Kate Farmer
    • 2
  • Katalin Maros
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Biology IUniversity of RegensburgRegensburgGermany
  2. 2.Centre for Social Learning & Cognitive Evolution, School of PsychologyUniversity of St AndrewsSt AndrewsScotland, UK
  3. 3.Department of Agri-Environmental Management, Ethology and Animal Welfare GroupSzent István UniversityGödöllőHungary

Personalised recommendations