Pair housing makes calves more optimistic

Individual housing of dairy calves is common farm practice, but has negative effects on calf welfare. A compromise between practice and welfare may be housing calves in pairs. We compared learning performances and affective states as assessed in a judgement bias task of individually housed and pair-housed calves. Twenty-two calves from each housing treatment were trained on a spatial Go/No-go task with active trial initiation to discriminate between the location of a teat-bucket signalling either reward (positive location) or non-reward (negative location). We compared the number of trials to learn the operant task (OT) for the trial initiation and to finish the subsequent discrimination task (DT). Ten pair-housed and ten individually housed calves were then tested for their responses to ambiguous stimuli positioned in-between the positive and negative locations. Housing did not affect learning speed (OT: F1,35 = 0.39, P = 0.54; DT: F1,19 = 0.15, P = 0.70), but pair-housed calves responded more positively to ambiguous cues than individually housed calves (χ21 = 6.79, P = 0.009), indicating more positive affective states. This is the first study to demonstrate that pair housing improves the affective aspect of calf welfare when compared to individual housing.

Pair housing makes calves more optimistic

Individual housing of dairy calves is common farm practice, but has negative effects on calf welfare. A compromise between practice and welfare may be housing calves in pairs. We compared learning performances and affective states as assessed in a judgement bias task of individually housed and pair-housed calves. Twenty-two calves from each housing treatment were trained on a spatial Go/No-go task with active trial initiation to discriminate between the location of a teat-bucket signalling either reward (positive location) or non-reward (negative location). We compared the number of trials to learn the operant task (OT) for the trial initiation and to finish the subsequent discrimination task (DT). Ten pair-housed and ten individually housed calves were then tested for their responses to ambiguous stimuli positioned in-between the positive and negative locations. Housing did not affect learning speed (OT: F1,34 = 0.42, P = 0.52; DT: F1,34 = 0.25, P = 0.62), but pair-housed calves responded more positively to ambiguous cues than individually housed calves (χ21 = 6.76, P = 0.009), indicating more positive affective states. This is the first study to demonstrate that pair housing improves the affective aspect of calf welfare when compared to individual housing.

Looking in the eyes to discriminate

Studies showed that individual differences in encoding speed as well as looking behaviour during the encoding of facial stimuli can relate to differences in subsequent face discrimination. Nevertheless, a direct linkage between encoding speed and looking behaviour during the encoding of facial stimuli and the role of these encoding characteristics for subsequent discrimination has not been investigated yet. In the present habituation study, an eye-tracker was used to investigate how individual differences in encoding speed (number of habituation trials) relate to individual differences in looking behaviour on faces and the internal facial features (eyes, nose, and mouth) during encoding as well as discrimination. Forty infants habituated to a photograph of a female face. In a subsequent dishabituation phase, a new face was followed by the familiar one. As expected, the results showed that most of the infants were able to habituate to the face and that they managed to discriminate between the new and the familiar face. Furthermore, correlations and analyses of variance showed that individual differences in encoding during habituation related to differences in looking behaviour during habituation as well as dishabituation. Slower-habituating infants could better discriminate between the new and the familiar face and showed a higher interest in the eyes during habituation as well as dishabituation than faster-habituating infants. These data underline that individual differences in encoding speed relate to individual differences in looking behaviour and that increased looking behaviour to important social cues might help subsequent discrimination.

Prejudicial behavior: More closely linked to homophilic peer preferences than to trait bigotry

We disagree with Dixon et al. by maintaining that prejudice is primarily rooted in aversive reactions toward out-group members. However, these reactions are not indicative of negative attributes, such as trait bigotry, but rather normative homophily for peers with similar perceived attributes. Cognitive biases such as stereotype threat perpetuate perceptions of inequipotential and subsequent discrimination, irrespective of individuals' personality characteristics.

Effects of Exposure on Discrimination of Similar Stimuli and on Memory for Their Unique and Common Features

Human participants received exposure to similar visual stimuli (AW and BW) that shared a common feature (W). Experiment 1 demonstrated that subsequent discrimination between AW and BW was more accurate when the two stimuli were preexposed on an intermixed schedule (AW, BW, AW, BW…) than when they were preexposed on a blocked schedule (AW, AW…BW, BW…): the intermixed–blocked effect. Furthermore, memory for the unique features of the stimuli (A and B) was better when the stimuli were preexposed on an intermixed schedule than when they were preexposed on a blocked schedule. Conversely, memory for the common features of the stimuli (W) was better when the stimuli were preexposed on a blocked schedule than when they were preexposed on an intermixed schedule. Experiment 2 again demonstrated the intermixed–blocked effect, but participants were preexposed to the stimuli in such a way that the temporal spacing between exposures to the unique features was equated between schedules. Memory for the unique and common features was similar to that found in Experiment 1. These findings support the proposal that perceptual learning depends on a mechanism that enhances memory for the unique features and reduces memory for common features.

Learned Changes in Stimulus Representations (A Personal History)

Almost 40 years ago I began what turned out to be a programme of research on the way in which experience can change the effectiveness of the events used as stimuli in standard associative learning procedures. In this personal history I will describe my early (failed) attempts to find evidence for the acquired distinctiveness of cues, and my conclusion that experience tends to reduce, not enhance the associability of stimuli. I then go on to describe my attempts to square this conclusion with the stubborn empirical fact that, in some circumstances, pretraining with (or preexposure to) stimuli, can facilitate subsequent discrimination between them. I describe experiments (conducted mostly with rats as the subjects) showing how some of these effects can be explained in associative terms. Others, however, seemed to demand an explanation in terms of a new learning process that modulates the effective salience of stimuli. I go on to describe attempts to specify the nature of this process, and (bringing the story up to date) to describe recent experiments investigating the effects of salience modulation in human perceptual learning.

Perceptual Learning in Maze Discriminations

In Experiment 1, rats were trained on a discrimination between rubber- and sandpaper-covered arms of a maze after one group had been pre-exposed to these intra-maze cues. Pre-exposure facilitated subsequent discrimination learning, unless the discrimination was made easier by adding further discriminative stimuli, when it now significantly retarded learning. In Experiment 2, rats were trained on an extra-maze spatial discrimination, again after one group, but not another, had been pre-exposed to the extra-maze landmarks. Here too, pre-exposure facilitated subsequent discrimination learning, unless the discrimination was made substantially easier by arranging that the two arms between which rats had to choose were always separated by 135°. The results of both experiments can be explained by supposing that perceptual learning depends on the presence of features common to S+ and S-.