Original Research
Responses of Domestic Horses and Ponies to Single, Combined and Conflicting Visual and Auditory Cues

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2016.06.080Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Horses and ponies successfully use both visual and auditory cues in object-choice tests.

  • Ponies outperform horses when responding to visual cues, but not auditory cues.

  • Success is not enhanced when cues are combined compared with when presented singly.

  • Responses are random when cues are presented simultaneously but provide conflicting information.

Abstract

Domestic horses and ponies communicate using visual and auditory signals. It has been reported that equines can respond to visual cues in object-choice tests, but utilization of auditory cues, alone or associated with visual cues, has not be investigated. Effect of equine breed type in object-choice selection is unknown. Using object-choice tests, we investigated the hypotheses that breed types (1) can use both visual and auditory human-given cues; (2) that performance is enhanced when both visual and auditory cues are presented together to signal a baited bucket, compared with when a cue is presented singly; (3) that latency to make a choice increases and choice is random, when auditory and visual cues conflict; and (4) that ponies outperform horses. Irrespective of breed type, subjects were equally successful at using single visual, auditory, and combined cues (proportion of correct choices: visual 0.63 ± 0.047 [P = .004], auditory 0.61 ± 0.045 [P = .013], combined 0.64 ± 0.054 [P = .007]). In contrast to our hypothesis, combining cues did not significantly improve the likelihood of correct choice. Ponies outperformed horses using visual cues (P = .044). In conflicting cue tests, 70% of subjects responded randomly; the remainder preferentially responded to visual cues. Our study showed that horses and ponies can respond with equal proficiency to both visual and auditory cues, alone and combined; however, ponies outperformed horses using visual cues. Our results may be used to improve relationships between humans and equines, as we demonstrated the importance of engaging both visual and auditory modalities.

Introduction

Domestic equine breed types (horses and ponies) are highly sensitive to cues, such as body language and auditory cues [1]. In relationships with human, equine breed types must correctly interpret human-given cues to learn novel skills, express desirable behaviors, and avoid actions unwanted by humans. Training often involves teaching equine breed types to respond to human-given cues through secondary conditioning, controlling behavior with auditory or visual signals [2]. It is possible to evaluate animals' ability to respond, and understand, human-given cues by using object-choice tests [3]. However, such tests have not been widely used to assess the capacity of domestic equine breed types to perceive, respond, and interact with human-given cues. The few object-choice tests conducted with equine breed types have been confined to visual cues [4], [5], [6], [7]. The capacity of equine breed types to respond to either auditory cues presented alone or simultaneous visual and auditory cues (combined cues) has not been investigated. The impact of presenting two cues that do not direct the animal to the same outcome (conflicting cues) may reduce the rate of correct responses, because in equine breed types, learning has previously been considered to be impaired by conflicting cues [8].

This study aimed to explore the capacity of equine breed types to perceive, respond, and interact with visual and auditory cues given by humans. Our hypotheses were tested using object-choice tests, where an animal must use a cue to make a correct choice to earn a reward. The primary hypothesis was that domestic equids could learn a task by using positively reinforced visual and auditory human-given cues. We hypothesized that combined cues would improve the likelihood of correct choice (approaching the bucket with the reward), but that horses' responses would be random when presented with conflicting cues. Previous object-choice tests have suggested that environmental and genetic factors are influential [3]. Given this, we predicted that ponies would outperform horses, as associations of learning ability with equine breed type and work history suggest ponies, renowned to be comparatively intelligent and adept at learning, with a history of selection for working in human-horse relationships involving traits such as low anxiousness and excitability/emotionality, and high obedience and patience, should be better able to use both visual and auditory cues than horses that are bred and trained predominantly for physical characteristics [9], [10], [11], [12].

Section snippets

Subjects

Twenty subjects (10 geldings, 10 mares, 5–20 year old), 10 of each equine breed type (horses vs. ponies, equally distributed between sexes) participated. Subjects were from the Claremont Therapeutic Riding School, Western Australia, where they are involved in various activities, ridden by children, experienced riders, and disabled persons of varying experience. They have ad lib access to water and are fed hay twice daily. All the ponies and horses were familiar with each other because they were

Object-Choice Tests with Visual and Auditory Cues, Presented Alone and Combined

The correct bucket was chosen above chance level for each cue type (Table 1). Proportion of correct choices overall (0.62 ± 0.020) was also above chance level (t19 = 4.0874, P = .0003). There was no effect or interactions between cue type, breed type, and gender on proportion of correct choices (P > .05). There was an effect of breed type for the visual cue (χ21 = 5.279, P = .022), with ponies outperforming horses (P = .044; Fig. 2). Subjects did not exhibit a side bias (P > .05).

Total correct

Discussion

Our study confirms that Equus caballus are able to use visual and auditory cues in object-choice tests. These data indicate that horses and ponies respond equally well to vision and sound cue to locate food when presented alone and not better when visual and auditory cues are presented together. Our results suggest genetics may influence performance because ponies were faster and achieved higher scores especially in responding to visual cues, compared with horses. Despite auditory stimuli being

Conclusions

Horses and ponies were overall equally adept, motivated, and/or responsive to auditory and visual signals; however, ponies were more successful than horses at using visual cues. Combining cues involving different sensory modalities did improve neither success rates nor latency to make a choice. Confronted with auditory and visual cues presenting conflicting information, most subjects had no preference for a particular sensory cue and rather chose at random, however, some individuals tended to

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Board of Claremont Therapeutic Riding Centre and staff M'liss Henry, Louisa Barnacle, and Alex Faulkner. We are extremely grateful for their cooperation and generous permission to use their facilities and horses. We would also like to acknowledge the helpful comments from Dr Jennifer Kelley on the preparation of this manuscript.

Conflict of interest statement: No competing interests to be declared.

Contributors: A.(K.)P. has contributed to all aspects of the

References (26)

  • D.S. Mills

    Applying learning theory to the management of the horse: the difference between getting it right and getting it wrong

    Equine Vet J

    (1998)
  • A. Miklosi et al.

    A comparative analysis of animals' understanding of the human pointing gesture

    Anim Cogn

    (2006)
  • K. Maros et al.

    Comprehension of human pointing gestures in horses (Equus caballus)

    Anim Cogn

    (2008)
  • Cited by (7)

    • Welfare of horses and humans in animal-assisted interventions

      2020, Animal-Assisted Interventions for Health and Human Service Professionals
    • Equine behavioral medicine

      2019, Equine Behavioral Medicine
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text