2005 39Th Congress, Kanagawa, Japan
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 39TH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR APPLIED ETHOLOGY RYO KUSUNOSE & SHUSUKE SATO (EDITORS) KANAGAWA, JAPAN 2005 183P PUBLISHED BY ISAE2005 PRINTED IN JAPAN COPYRIGHT ISAE2005 Page 1 Abstracts of Wood-Gush Memorial and Plenaries Page 30 Shigeru Watanabe is the professor of psychology at Keio University. He is the president of the Japanese Society for Animal Pschology and associate editor of Animal Cognition. Dr. Watanabe has published a lot of literatures in the field of comparative cognitive science. He has studied the diversity of cognition in animals with various animal subjects from fish to apes. One of his worldwide well-known researches is that crows can distinguish between the paintings of vanGogh and Chagall, and between the paintings of Picasso and those of Monet (Pigeon’s Discrimination of Paintings by Monet and Picassco. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, vol. 63,1995, pp. 165-174.). Even though the paintings are abstracted with mosaic, pigeons are able to perform the task. This study was awarded with the Ig Novel Prize: psychology, in 1995. He is also interested in animal welfare, and has related papers published in the field. (By Dr. Yoshikazu Ueno) Page 31 Animal cognition and animal welfare Shigeru Watanabe Department of Psychology, Keio University *Correspondence: 1) What do animals want? Animals appear to behave to avoid unpleasant state and to maintain a pleasant state. Spencer claimed that pleasant state is adaptive in an evolutionary sense, thus it is adaptive for an animal to alter its behavior to maximize a pleasant state. This is a speculative theory of pleasure based on the correlation between pleasure and adaptation. Soon after, Thorndike formulated his “law of effect” as follows. “Of several responses made to the same situation, those which are accompanied with or closely followed by satisfaction to the animal, will often other things being equal, be more firmly connected with the situation”, where satisfaction is defined as the state in which “the animal does nothing to avoid, often doing such things as attain and preserve it”. This empirical definition of pleasure evolved to a more sophisticated definition of reinforcement by B.F. Skinner the founder of operant conditioning. According to Skinner “We observe the frequency of a selected response, then make an event contingent upon it and observe any change in frequency. If there is a change we classify the event as reinforcing to the organism under the existing conditions” (Skinner, 1953). Simple sensory stimulation, such as a light turning on also has some reinforcing effect for animals. Here, I report the reinforcing effect of music in songbirds. Java sparrows remained longer on a perch where they could hear music by Bach than a perch where they could hear music by Schoenberg (Watanabe & Nemoto, 1998). Thus, they preferred Bach to Schoenberg. Interestingly, pigeons, rats or goldfish do not demonstrate a musical preference although they can discriminate between different types of music. Some psychoactive drugs have strong reinforcing effects that cause addiction in humans. Dopamine has a crucial role in the reinforcing properties of these drugs as well as in reinforcement in general. Dopamine agonists have reinforcing properties and dopamine antagonists reduce reinforcing properties. We examined the reinforcing properties of methamphetamine, a stimulant, in mice, goldfish, and planaria. Even planaria prefer methamphetamine (Kusayama and Watanabe, 2000). Thus, the origin of dopamine agonist-induced positive reinforcement can be traced back to invertebrates. 2) What do animals recognize? To understand animal behavior, it is essential to know their sensory world, Umwelt. Several methods are used to examine the sensory world of animals. Innate behavior can be used to measure sensory threshold. Classical conditioning provides another tool for measuring the sensory world. Page 32 From the viewpoint of psychophysics, operant conditioning provides the most reliable measurement. For example, the visual acuity of Japanese jungle crows measured vy operant conditioning is better than that of pigeons, but worse than predators such as falcon (Yamamoto et al., 2001) . Animals can discriminate complex stimuli such as music as demonstrated previously. Even carp and goldfish can discriminate between two different types of music. I trained Java sparrows to discriminate between English from Chinese. After the training, the birds were tested with novel text spoken by a novel speaker. The birds maintained their discrimination in the tests. These results clearly demonstrated that the Java sparrows could discriminate between two different languages. Thus, songbirds have auditory discrimination abilities comparable to humans. They have, however, a different auditory system than humans. First, they do not have a laminated cortical structure. Auditory input goes to the telencephalon, then to the diencephalon before returning to the telencephalon . Birds can also discriminate complex visual stimuli such as paintings. Pigeons were trained to discriminate between watercolor and pastel paintings. The birds also demonstrated generalization to new paintings, indicating that they could discriminate painting media. Pigeons could also discriminate between painters . Pigeons trained to respond to Van Gogh but not to Chagall responded to paintings of Van Gogh to which they had been exposed during the training (Watanabe, 2001). These observations suggest that birds have visual cognition similar to humans. Their visual discrimination however, is not exactly the same as humans. Pigeons maintained their discrimination for scrambled paintings made of small parts of the paintings. Such discrimination is impossible for humans. Their brain mechanisms are also different from humans. In pigeon, the visual pathway through the optic tectum is the main visual system, whereas in human the principal visual pathway does not involve the tectum (colliculus superior). 3) Animal cognition and animal welfare The concept of animal welfare is somewhat anthropomorphic, hence there is species discrimination. For example, primates, particularly great apes, must be treated more carefully than rodents. What is the origin of this type of species discrimination? Biological relatedness with humans? Or a scala naturale? Recent studies of animal cognition demonstrated that cognitive ability evolves independently in different species. An increase in brain size occurs in different animal groups independently , for example, primates in mammals and corvids in birds. If cognitive ability is an important factor in animal welfare, we must carefully evaluate the cognitive ability of species that are distant from humans. References Kusayama,T., & Watanabe,S. 2000 Reinforcing effects of methampetamine in planarians. Neuroreports,11,2511-2513. Skinner,B.F. 1953 Science and human behavior The free Press Page 33 Watanabe,S. 2001 Gogh, Chagall and pigeons. Animal Cognition ,4,147-151 Watanabe,S., & Nemoto,M. 1998 Reinforceing property of music in Java sparrows (Padda oryzivora). Behavioural Processes,43,211-218. Yamamoto,K., Fuyura,Y., & Watanabe,S. 2001 Near-field visual acquity in Japanese jungke crows (Corvus macrorhynchos). Physiology and Behavior,72,283-286. Page 34 “ENVIRONMENTAL ENRICHMENT” BASED ON WILDNESS, REQUIREMENTS AND WELFARE OF ANIMALS P. Koene Ethology Group, Department of Animal Sciences, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands *Correspondence: [email protected] This paper reviews current theory and practice of environmental enrichment. In addition, the concept of potential wildness, indicating the ability to show wild-type behaviour and to survive in the wild, is introduced to weigh species-specific behaviour, environmental requirements and animal welfare, ranging between natural and captive conditions. The working hypothesis is that the potential wildness of an animal determines its environmental requirements and the care humans should give. When designing environments for wild and captive animals, two approaches are possible, the bottom-up and the top-down approach. In the case of farm animals, the bottom-up approach is usually taken, i.e. the animals are kept under circumstances that are as simple as possible. If animals in such environments show behaviour indicative of suffering, modification of the environment is necessary to decrease animal suffering. The second, top-down, approach starts from an environment that fulfills all natural needs of the wild or captive animal, and reduces complexity until an environment remains in which at least the basic needs of the animal are fulfilled. This second approach is not often taken, but is recognizable in some designs of naturalistic zoo enclosures. Last but not least attention is given to the evaluation of the effects of providing environmental requirements and/or enrichment. Evaluation of the animal’s response should only be done in situ, i.e on the farm and in the zoo. Individual animals must be asked the right questions (by using randomization and single case analysis) and answers of different individuals can be combined in overall conclusions (using meta-analysis). In this paper the enriched environment is situated between the environment that provides basic requirements and the natural environment. The requirements of an animal on this scale vary with its potential wildness. Furthermore, for providing environmental enrichment the top-down approach is more efficient