Do animals see the world the way we do?
We can't ask them, so scientists have devised an experiment.
01 April, 2021
Credit: sebastiangora/Roxana/Adobe Stock/Big Think
- Humans have the capacity for conscious awareness of our visual world.
- While all sighted animals respond to visual stimuli, we don't know if any of them consciously take note of what they're seeing in the way that we do.
- Researchers from Yale have devised experiments that suggest that rhesus monkeys share this ability.
<p>
All day long, our brains are busy receiving sensory information: smells, sounds, sights, and so on. We absorb much of this without really thinking about it. However, every now and then something we see grabs our attention, maybe a stunning landscape or a beautiful sunset. We stop what we're doing and spend a moment taking it in. Are we the only animal that can stop and take conscious notice of what we see?
</p><p>
A study just published in the
<a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/118/15/e2017543118" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"> <em>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</em></a> suggests that we're not. It appears that at least one other animal — the rhesus monkey, <em>Macaca mulatta</em> — shares our ability to pay deliberate attention to what it sees. The authors of the study infer this ability, paradoxically, from the manner in which the monkey deals with visual inputs it <em>doesn't</em> consciously notice.
</p><p>
<br>
</p><h2>Double disassociation</h2><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTk1MDc3MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMjQ2MjczOX0.p3zSlFlblNu0B52WlpTKUuY5dP0jWlbE2gwJ_126Bk4/img.jpg?width=980" id="00130" width="1440" height="960" data-rm-shortcode-id="1a37ff8d97ac139c821984f837016fda" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">Credit: <a href="https://unsplash.com/@amandadalbjorn" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Amanda Dalbjörn</a>/Unsplash</small>
</p><p>
It has been known for some time that even when visual stimuli escape our conscious attention, we respond to it subliminally, says Yale psychologist Laurie Santos, co-senior author of the paper along with Yale psychologist Steve Chang and Ran Hassin of Hebrew University. Even so, she says, "We tend to show different patterns of learning when presented with subliminal stimuli than we do for consciously experienced, or supraliminal stimuli." ("Supraliminal" describes visual stimuli that are consciously noted.)
<br>
</p><p>
The authors of the study set out to see if rhesus monkeys exhibited a similar "double disassociation" in the way they respond to supraliminal vs. subliminal visual stimuli.
</p><h2>Ask a monkey a question</h2><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTk1MDc5Mi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY3NzE3NDU4OH0.16kHB95JAZDzjGIMsdo64pBgrylnAhx6HDqJOEqoIKY/img.jpg?width=980" id="b091c" width="1440" height="954" data-rm-shortcode-id="b916d42a9e5008baddf90d73951ea807" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">Credit: <a href="https://unsplash.com/@haughters" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Jamie Haughton</a>/Unsplash</small>
</p><p>
Obviously, research on animals is hampered by our inability to question critters. As a result, scientists need to be creative in designing experimental methods that allow them to draw conclusions based strictly on empirical observation.
<br>
</p><p>
"People have wondered for a long time whether animals experience the world the way we do, but it's been difficult to figure out a good way to test this question empirically," says first author of the study, Moshe Shay Ben-Haim, a postdoctoral fellow at Yale University.
</p><p>
The researchers came up with a series of experiments in which both humans and rhesus monkeys could observably demonstrate how they process subliminal and supraliminal visual stimuli.
</p><p>
In the experiments, participants were tasked with predicting the side of a computer screen on which a target image would appear depending on the position of a visual cue, a small star symbol, provided by the researchers.
</p><p>
When the researchers displayed the cue on one side of the screen long enough to ensure that it was noticed — that is, it was a supraliminal signal — both humans and monkeys learned to look for the target image on the opposite side of the screen.
</p><p>
On the other hand, when the star flashed on the screen only very briefly, both humans and monkeys consistently looked to the side on which this subliminal signal had appeared, anticipating the target image's appearance there.
</p><p>
In the first case, the subjects learned the significance of the cue's position. In the second, their response simply mirrored the subliminal cue. This, say the authors, demonstrates the different ways in which humans — and monkeys apparently — react to visual stimuli that are consciously noticed or not.
</p><p>
Ben-Haim summarizes the authors' interpretation of the experiment:
</p><ul class="ee-ul"></ul><p>
"These results show that at least one non-human animal exhibits both non-conscious perception as well as human-like conscious visual awareness. We now have a new non-verbal method for assessing whether other non-human creatures experience visual awareness in the same way as humans."
</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Whales warned each other about hunters in the 19th century
Digitized logbooks from the 1800s reveal a steep decline in strike rate for whalers.
23 March, 2021
Credit: Morphart/Adobe Stock
<ul class="ee-ul"></ul>
<p>Until someone works out a way to communicate with them, we can't really know <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/news-blog/are-whales-smarter-than-we-are/" target="_blank">how smart whales are</a>. We do know they have the largest brains of any animals on the planet—of course, <em>big</em> is a thing they do really well altogether—and that their brains have more cortical convolutions than any other creature, including humans. There are indications that they're quite intelligent.</p><p>If that's so, however, why did 19th-century whalers in the North Pacific find it so easy to drive them to the edge of extinction? Didn't they see what was happening? <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2021.0030" target="_blank">New research</a> published by the Royal Society in the U.K. apparently has an answer to that question, and it is "yes." An analysis of newly digitized whalers' log books finds that whalers' ability to harpoon sperm whales dropped precipitously after initial successes.</p><p>One possible explanation for the falloff would be that whalers' competence somehow degraded over time, but that doesn't seem especially logical. A more likely interpretation is that whales warned each other and modified their behavior to avoid the ships. If this is so, it suggests several thrilling things about the animals. First, they apparently shared information about the new predators, and second, they developed an effective evasive strategy.</p>
A good look at mariners’ records
<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTg2NjUyMC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY3Nzk3NjA0Nn0.5ft-4gBb777El40qlxNTzeRMQuf_84GDnf2sxe12U78/img.jpg?width=980" id="82117" width="1440" height="810" data-rm-shortcode-id="d2bb78efd142be939e1c1facb2ca7e35" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Credit: Aris Suwanmalee/Adobe Stock
<p>The paper was written by cetacean experts <a href="http://whitelab.biology.dal.ca/hw/hal.htm" target="_blank">Hal Whitehead</a> of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia and <a href="https://risweb.st-andrews.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/luke-edward-rendell(91488083-0929-4e13-a1d8-d8366630af09).html" target="_blank">Luke Rendell</a> of University of St. Andrews in Scotland, along with data scientist <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=AXoR9wwAAAAJ&hl=en" target="_blank">Tim. D. Smith</a>. Whitehead and Rendell are co-authors of "<a href="https://amzn.to/3f5Z63o" target="_blank">The Cultural Lives of Whales and Dolphins</a>."</p><p>The researchers were working from the logbooks of American whalers operating between 10° and 50° in the North Pacific Ocean in the 19th century. The daily logs listed a ship's noon position, the number of sperm whales sighted, and how many whales were harpooned ("struck") or processed ("tried"). These records allowed the researchers to identify the date on which first contact with local whales occurred. From there, they were able to calculate the rate at which whales were encountered over the subsequent years.</p><p>The researchers found that about 2.4 years after first contact, whalers' strike rate fell by 58 percent. </p><p>At first, it seems the whales didn't quite know what to do about the whalers and responded to them similarly to the manner in which they defend themselves against the only predator they'd known up to that point: orcas. They formed defensive circles, their powerful tails pointed out to fend off their attackers. Unfortunately, this provided no defense against harpoons and likely made whaler's jobs easier by gathering groups of whales together where they could be easily killed.</p><p>Soon however, the leviathan strategy shifted and whales took to swimming upwind away from whalers' ships, an effective evasive maneuver that kept them ahead of the wind-driven boats. As White tells <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/17/sperm-whales-in-19th-century-shared-ship-attack-information?fbclid=IwAR16FXhh0pd6Xb5tvqA4S0Y0ybI9E3GiF_ci0V0MhQj_UzH8Xe8ZY16oaPg" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>, "This was cultural evolution, much too fast for genetic evolution."</p>Whale social learning and strategy
<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTg2NjUyNS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NjEwMzgwNn0.9TekhzUMiZxTH-rpE2lq-dsAGdh4ovpzTXKnVvDbcDw/img.jpg?width=980" id="499f1" width="1440" height="980" data-rm-shortcode-id="57ca130e8a4595af1097c43c97f2aa67" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Spectrogram of a humpback whale song
Credit: Spyrogumas/Wikimedia Commons
<p>While there remains debate over whether whale communities exhibit characteristics we'd recognize as culture, examples of what seems to be social learning support the idea that it does exist.</p><p>Whales are known to communicate with each other over large distances through their haunting—and mysterious to us—<a href="https://medium.com/@dealville/whales-synchronize-their-songs-across-oceans-and-theres-sheet-music-to-prove-it-b1667f603844" target="_blank">songs</a>. These songs provide some hard-to-argue-with evidence for social leaning among whales: They evolve over time, and as they change, those changes are reflected by entire local whale populations. "We don't have to do anything but observe it to know that there's no explanation other than learning from others that can account for this," wrote Whitehead and Rendell to NPR in 2015.</p><p>Rendell wrote in <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6131/485" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Science</a> in 2013 about what seems to be an innovation that was shared among whales: the spread of a particular type of feeding, "<a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/image-of-the-week/lobtail-feeding-in-whales/" target="_blank">lobtailing</a>," that seems to have spread from <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/130425-humpback-whale-culture-behavior-science-animals" target="_blank">one humpback whale</a> in 1980 to hundreds in a wider area over the next few decades.</p><p>There are also examples of cetaceans clearly using strategy, such as the manner in which orcas hunt together for <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/facts/weddell-seal" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Weddell seals</a>, <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2010.00453.x" target="_blank">described</a> by NOAA scientist Bob Pitman. The seals attempt to evade the orcas by remaining out of the water on ice floes. The orcas synchronize their flukes to create waves that either knock a seal off of a floe, or break the ice apart. Once the seal is in the water, the orcas blow bubbles under the water and apparently using their tails to create enough turbulence that the seal finds it harder to get back on the ice. If it does get out to safety, the orcas do it all over again until, according to Pitman, by about the fourth attempt, they usually have their prey, which they share.</p><p>And then there's the whales' evasive tactics for dealing with 19th-century whaling ships.</p>Back to the present and future
<p>Unfortunately, modern vessels , equipment, and strategies were not as easy to evade, and whale populations were severely depleted in the 20 century. And while that threat is <a href="https://wwf.panda.org/discover/knowledge_hub/endangered_species/cetaceans/threats/whaling/?" target="_blank">hopefully diminishing</a>, modern fishing tactics such a <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-36389-x" target="_blank">long-line fishing</a> that hooks whales, the intrusion of <a href="https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/ocean-noise-pollution" target="_self">human noise</a> in the oceans, <a href="https://www.blueoceansociety.org/blog/how-does-ocean-plastic-affect-whales/" target="_blank">plastics and other floating waste</a>, and <a href="https://us.whales.org/our-4-goals/create-healthy-seas/climate-change/" target="_blank">climate change</a> means that today's seas are just as challenging as ever to whales. Maybe moreso. And nobody can outswim climate change.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Are geniuses real? The neuroscience and myths of visionaries
Labeling thinkers like Albert Einstein and Steve Jobs as "other" may be stifling humanity's creative potential.
21 March, 2021
- Revolutionary ideas and culture-shifting inventions are often credited to specific individuals, but how often do these "geniuses" actually operate in creative silos?
- Tim Sanders, former chief strategy officer at Yahoo, argues that there are three myths getting in the way of innovative ideas and productive collaborations: the myths of the expert, the eureka moment, and the "lone inventor."
- More than an innate quality reserved for an elite group, neuroscientist Heather Berlin and neurobiologist Joy Hirsch explain how creativity looks in the brain, and how given opportunity, resources, and attitude, we can all be like Bach, Beethoven, and Steve Jobs.
Cephalopod aces 'marshmallow test' designed for eager children
The famous cognition test was reworked for cuttlefish. They did better than expected.
04 March, 2021
Credit: Hans Hillewaert via Wikicommons
- Scientists recently ran the Stanford marshmallow experiment on cuttlefish and found they were pretty good at it.
- The test subjects could wait up to two minutes for a better tasting treat.
- The study suggests cuttlefish are smarter than you think but isn't the final word on how bright they are.
<p> The Stanford marshmallow test, an experiment asking kids to hold off on eating one marshmallow for 15 minutes in exchange for two as a reward, was introduced in 1972 by psychologist Walter Mischel. The study checked in on the participants years later and noted that those who could delay their gratification a bit generally turned out better than those who could not.</p><p>The study has attracted attention since the day it was published. Attempts to recreate it have confirmed its basic findings, although some of those attempts suggest that how well the kids turn out is partly attributable to factors other than the ability to delay <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6050075/" target="_blank">gratification</a>. </p><p>While we debate how important the ability to wait for rewards is, science continues to find out which other animals are capable of it. A new variation on the experiment adds cuttlefish to that <a href="https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/03/cuttlefish-can-pass-the-marshmallow-test/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">list</a>. </p>
Proof that some people are less patient than invertebrates
<iframe width="730" height="430" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/H1yhGClUJ0U" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe><p> The common cuttlefish is a small cephalopod notable for producing sepia ink and relative intelligence for an invertebrate. Studies have shown them to be capable of remembering important details from previous foraging experiences, and to adjust their foraging strategies in response to changing circumstances. </p><p>In a new study, published in <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2020.3161" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Proceedings of the Royal Society B</a>, researchers demonstrated that the critters have mental capacities previously thought limited to vertebrates.</p><p>After determining that cuttlefish are willing to eat raw king prawns but prefer a live grass shrimp, the researchers trained them to associate certain symbols on see-through containers with a different level of accessibility. One symbol meant the cuttlefish could get into the box and eat the food inside right away, another meant there would be a delay before it opened, and the last indicated the container could not be opened.</p><p>The cephalopods were then trained to understand that upon entering one container, the food in the other would be removed. This training also introduced them to the idea of varying delay times for the boxes with the second <a href="https://www.sciencealert.com/cuttlefish-can-pass-a-cognitive-test-designed-for-children" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">symbol</a>. </p><p>Two of the cuttlefish recruited for the study "dropped out," at this point, but the remaining six—named Mica, Pinto, Demi, Franklin, Jebidiah, and Rogelio—all caught on to how things worked pretty quickly.</p><p>It was then that the actual experiment could begin. The cuttlefish were presented with two containers: one that could be opened immediately with a raw king prawn, and one that held a live grass shrimp that would only open after a delay. The subjects could always see both containers and had the ability to go to the immediate access option if they grew tired of waiting for the other. The poor control group was faced with a box that never opened and one they could get into right away.</p><p>In the end, the cuttlefish demonstrated that they would wait anywhere between 50 and 130 seconds for the better treat. This is the same length of time that some primates and birds have shown themselves to be able to wait for.</p><p>Further tests of the subject's cognitive abilities—they were tested to see how long it took them to associate a symbol with a prize and then on how long it took them to catch on when the symbols were switched—showed a relationship between how long a cuttlefish was willing to wait and how quickly it learned the associations. </p>All of this is interesting, but what use could it possibly have?
<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTcxNzY2MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2MTM0MzYyMH0.lKFLPfutlflkzr_NM6WmnosKM1rU6UEIHWlyzWhYQNM/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C10%2C0%2C88&height=700" id="77c04" width="1245" height="700" data-rm-shortcode-id="7622b8d29429a75e132b03dd6571a09c" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />A diagram showing the experimental set up. On the left is the control condition, on the right is the experimental condition.
Credit: Alexandra K. Schnell et al., 2021
<p> As you can probably guess, the ability to delay gratification as part of a plan is not the most common thing in the animal kingdom. While humans, apes, some birds, and dogs can do it, less intelligent animals can't. </p><p>While it is reasonably simple to devise a hypothesis for why social humans, tool-making chimps, or hunting birds are able to delay gratification, the cuttlefish is neither social, a toolmaker, or is it hunting anything particularly <a href="https://gizmodo.com/cuttlefish-are-able-to-wait-for-a-reward-1846392756" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">intelligent</a>. Why they evolved this capacity is up for debate. </p><p>Lead author Alexandra Schnell of the University of Cambridge discussed their speculations on the evolutionary advantage cuttlefish might get out of this skill with <a href="https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-03/mbl-qc022621.php" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Eurekalert:</a> </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"> "Cuttlefish spend most of their time camouflaging, sitting and waiting, punctuated by brief periods of foraging. They break camouflage when they forage, so they are exposed to every predator in the ocean that wants to eat them. We speculate that delayed gratification may have evolved as a byproduct of this, so the cuttlefish can optimize foraging by waiting to choose better quality food."</p><p>Given the unique evolutionary tree of the cuttlefish, its cognitive abilities are an example of convergent evolution, in which two unrelated animals, in this case primates and cuttlefish, evolve the same trait to solve similar problems. These findings could help shed light on the evolution of the cuttlefish and its relatives. </p><p> It should be noted that this study isn't definitive; at the moment, we can't make a useful comparison between the overall intelligence of the cuttlefish and the other animals that can or cannot pass some variation of the marshmallow test.</p><p>Despite this, the results are quite exciting and will likely influence future research into animal intelligence. If the common cuttlefish can pass the marshmallow test, what else can?</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Pigs proven intelligent enough to play video games
They did really well considering joysticks are not designed for oral use.
18 February, 2021
Credits: Candace Croney, Eston Martz at Pennsylvania State University/Frontiers Science News
- A quartet of porcine subjects at the Purdue Center for Animal Welfare Science learned to play a simple video game.
- All of the pigs scored well at the games' hardest level.
- Gaming skills were improved with human verbal and tactile encouragement.
<p>As evidence keeps mounting in support of the idea that pigs are highly intelligent—and despite some researchers viewing the species merely as a source of <a href="https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/human-pig-organ-transplant" target="_self">organs for human transplant</a>—there's some compelling new evidence from scientists at the Purdue Center for Animal Welfare Science. Researchers there have taught four pigs to operate joysticks and play a rudimentary video game.</p><p>As lead author of a new study describing the research, <a href="https://vet.purdue.edu/directory/person.php?id=618" target="_blank">Candace Croney</a> of Purdue University, <a href="https://blog.frontiersin.org/2021/02/11/frontiers-psychology-domestic-pigs-remarkably-intelligent-can-learn-play-video-games-operate-joystick-snout/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">says</a>:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"It is no small feat for an animal to grasp the concept that the behavior they are performing is having an effect elsewhere. That pigs can do this to any degree should give us pause as to what else they are capable of learning and how such learning may impact them."</p><p>The study is published in the journal <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.631755/full#h3" target="_blank">Frontiers in Psychology</a>.</p>
The hunger games
<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTY2MTc3My9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2OTA4MDg3Nn0.Z04iG2j7O0G5sdCgRSH0i3KjPLedB0cOS0XCvpUHxRY/img.jpg?width=980" id="00289" width="1000" height="1173" data-rm-shortcode-id="140976c9727c67417506e764bc462204" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Croney with gamer Omelette
Credits: Candace Croney, Eston Martz at Pennsylvania State University/Frontiers Science News
<p>The experiments involved four pigs: Yorkshire pigs named Hamlet and Omelette, and Panepinto micro pigs named Ebony and Ivory. All four were taught to approach and engage a joystick to move an onscreen cursor to a designated target. Doing so got them a non-virtual treat, a dog kibble pellet, delivered to a bowl next to the screen.</p><p>All four of the pigs were tested and found to be farsighted, so the monitor was placed 45 cm away from their eyes when they were in position to work the joysticks. During training, they were first taught to approach the joystick with the verbal command "joystick," followed by a pellet upon success.</p><p>The pigs learned that by guiding the cursor to one of the blue walls displayed onscreen, they'd be rewarded with a "bloop" sound, a pellet, and words of encouragement from a nearby human. Varying levels of difficulty were achieved by making either three, two, or one wall bloop-able in different sessions. All of the pigs did well when playing the difficult, one-walled version of the game.</p><p>All of the pigs succeeded well above the level expected if they were doing it by chance. And it bears mentioning that, lacking fingers and hands, they had to manipulate their joysticks by mouth — we'll wait while <em>you</em> try it.</p><p>In addition to being able to play this "game" well, the researchers found that the pigs' performance could be improved with human verbal encouragement. On those occasions when the treat dispenser was turned off, the players could be encouraged verbally or tactilely to keep working the joysticks. The researchers also found that for more difficult tasks, only verbal encouragement seemed able to guide the pigs to success.</p><p>"This sort of study is important," says Croney, "because, as with any sentient beings, how we interact with pigs and what we do to them impacts and matters to them. We therefore have an ethical obligation to understand how pigs acquire information, and what they are capable of learning and remembering because it ultimately has implications for how they perceive their interactions with us and their environments."</p>Just a beginning
<p>The pigs' performance did not match the success rate of primates playing similar games, but, again, primates have fingers. The study notes, "Limitations in the joystick methodology suggest that future studies of the cognitive capacities of pigs and other domestic species may benefit from the use of touchscreens or other advanced computer-interfaced technology."</p><p>The researchers had hoped to test their charges' acumen with symbols, allowing for more direct communication, but the project concluded before such work could be explored.</p><p>Croney says, "Informing management practices and improving pig welfare was and still is a major goal, but really, that is secondary to better appreciating the uniqueness of pigs outside of any benefit we can derive from them."</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
