Metacognition: Metamemory in Horses

Transcription

1 The Huron University College Journal of Learning and Motivation Volume 48 Issue 1 Article Metacognition: Metamemory in Horses Kristen E. Zupet Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Zupet, Kristen E. (2010) "Metacognition: Metamemory in Horses," The Huron University College Journal of Learning and Motivation: Vol. 48: Iss. 1, Article 15. Available at: This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Psychology at Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Huron University College Journal of Learning and Motivation by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact kmarsha1@uwo.ca.

2 Metamemory in Hor^^ Metacognition: Metamemory in Horses Kirsten E. Zupet Huron University College I conducted an experiment in order to determine whether horses could look for information that had been present previously and would inform them on how to receive the reward for this task. One of two horses learned to use a cue to identify where a food reward was located. This horse then failed to learn to move or look behind a sheet that would have revealed for her a previously learned discriminative cue, leading her to a food reward. These results were discussed in relation to other breeds of horses, the possible measurement of neural activity and the need for more effective methods to test metacognition in animals. Metacognition is the processes how humans know what they know and what they do not know. It is when an individual thinks about their knowledge. It has been shown that certain mammals are able to look for and use a cue in order to complete a task. However it has also been shown that other mammals are imable to do this. Which indicates operation of metacognition. Hampton, Zivin and Murray used rehus monkeys in their attempt to discover whether these primates could use metacognition, think about knowledge (2004). They did this by testing whether the monkeys could access their shortterm memories in order to complete a task. These monkeys had been through object discrimination and matching to sample tasks prior to their study (Hampton et al. 2004, p 240)). The experiment was that the monkeys would see the experimenter place the food in the tubes on half of the trails and would not on the other half. The goal of which was too see if they would be able to look inside the tubes when they were unable to see the experimenter (Hampton et al. 2004, p. 241). There were foiir feeding tubes and the

3 Metamemory in Hor^^^ location of the food was chosen randomly (Hampton et al. 2004). During thefirstphase, transparent tubes were used (Hampton et al. 2004) so the monkeys were able to see the food regardless of whether they saw the experimenter. Monkeys moved on to phase 2, once they made the correct choice 100% of the time (Hampton et al. 2004, p.241). Phase 2 replaced the transparent tubes with opaque ones and the monkeys saw the experimenter place the food reward in a tube every trial (Hampton et al, 2004, p.241). Finally they used opaque tubes and let the monkey see the experimenter place the reward in the tubes during the one half of the trials and they were not able to see the experimenter do this during the other half of the trials (Hampton et al. 2004, p ). They found that in the final task the monkey looked in the tubes on unseen trials significantly more than they did on the unseen trials (Hampton et al. 2004, p ). According to Hampton et al., rehus monkeys xised their metacognition in the main task (Hampton et al. 2004, p. 244). They believed that the metacognition, demonstrated by their results, was memory awareness and the ability to differentiate between knowing and not knowing (Hampton et al. 2004, p.244). However, the thought process of animals, is extremely difficult to study because a monkey is unable to tell the experimenter what they are thinking while completing a task. We know that humans are able to think about whether we know or do not know something and act accordingly because we are able to tell one another. Rats, on the other hand have shown a lack of metacognition. Musolino, Cole, and Roberts conducted a study in which they used a T-maze to test whether rats would show results consistent with rats being able to think metacognitively (2009). In their first experiment, the rats were put in the T-maze and thus had to make a choice (Figure 1) (Musolino et al. 2009, p.6). At the top of the T-maze, where the rats had to chose to go

4 Figure 1. T-maze used by Musolino et al. in phase 1. Metamemory in Horses

5 Metamemory in either right or left, there was a black or white card that was associated with a particular direction (Musolino et al. 2009, p. 6-7). Once they had learned which was left and right for them, a barrier was put in place (Musolino et al. 2009, p. 7). The intent was that the rats would rear up and seek out the informative cue in order to make the choice of direction where the food would be located (Musolino et al. 2009). The rats however were unable to show any indication of rearing up to look for the informative cue when it was obscured (Musolino et al. 2009, p ). Therefore evidence for metacognition in rats was not found (Musolino et al. 2009, p. 11). Figure 2 shows the T-maze used in the second phase of their study. The rats were put in a T-maze where they could make an informative or uninformative choice, depending on the arm (Musolino et al. 2009, p. 14). This arm had a sign that would indicate which direction to turn for the reward if they were in the informative arm (Musolino et al. 2009, p. 15). The non-informative arm would give them no cues as to what direction to go (Musolino et al. 2009, p. 15). Originally the rats were forced to go down either the informative or non-informative arm alternating on each trial (Musolino et al. 2009). Then the rats were then forced to choose the informative or non-informative arm and significantly chose the informative arm (Musolino et al. 2009). Thefirstexperiment would lead one to believe that rats do not use metacognition. However, the second experiment seems to indicate that they might. It is possible though that in the second experiment the rats were responding in the way that they did because they had been conditioned to chose the informative side as they were able to get a reward more often on that side if they followed the rule of white/black means left/right and vice versa. It is therefore inconclusive if rats use metacognition.

6

7 Metamemory in Hor^J^ It still cannot be said conclusively that animals or even mammals have knowledge and use of metacognitive faculties. In my study I chose to use horses. Horses are another mammal species, but they have been trained for centuries to entertain humans and to work for them. I have grown up around horses and in my experience they are able to learn things quite quickly that they would never do in the wild. For example a wild horse would never bear another creature on its back and yet domesticated horses everywhere do this on a daily basis. I wonder if perhaps rats are just too primitive of a subject, and horses have rarely been used in psychological experiments and I think they would be able to do a number of things very well. I am investing whether horses may use metacognition and measuring this by seeing whether they will look for information when they are aware that it is present base on previous experience. For these reasons it is expected that horses should be able to use metacognition and be successful at this task. Method Subjects The subjects were two female horses (Equus Caballus) of the Thoroughbred breed. They both came from Milton, Ontario. My Fedish was bom on March 6* 2007, registration number K and weighed approximately 330 kg at the time of the study. Bold Silver was bom on April 22 '* 2007, registration number K and weighed approximately 375 kg at the time of the study. Between the hours of 8 am and 4pm the fillies were housed in a paddock with dimensions of 121 m by 121 m constmcted out of white oak, manufactured by Zupet& Son Construction Inc. (Burlington, ON). They shared this paddock with one other thoroughbred filly, it did not participate in the experiment. The paddock contained grass

8 Metamemory in and an automatic water-dispensing rubber tub. During the other hours of the day they were housed in individual north facing stalls constructed from white oak with the internal dimensions of 3.66 m by 3.66 m manufactured by Zupet& Son Construction Inc. (Burlington, ON). These stalls were located in a stable with 6 other stalls in a rectangular stable with both north and south facing stalls. In their stalls, the bedding consisted of wood shavings, manufactured by Agri-Line (New Hamberg, ON). There was also a bucket for water attached by a steel hook to the eastern most part of the north wall and a food bucket also attached by a steel hook in the western most comer of the stall. On the northem wall, there was a sliding door that was 1.83 m wide. The northem wall and door were 1.23 m of white oak wood and 1.23 m of 2.54 cm steel pipe bars. In the centre of the southem wall there was a window that was 1.02 mfromthe floor and had dimensions of 0.69 m wide by 1.23 m high. The fillies were fed 1.5 kilograms of Ontario Crimped and Cleaned Oats, manufactured by Sharpe Farm Supplies Limited (Guelph, ON) and 0.25 kgs of Purina Optimal Supplement (St. Lois, MS) twice each day, water was Ad lib. in their stalls and in the paddock. They also consumed grass in their paddock and had a 50% alp alpha, and 50% timothy hay mix in their stalls of which they received approximately 10 kg of this home grown and harvested hay per day. These fillies had no experimental history, but had some basic training. They had both been saddle broke and broke to handle. Being broke is the common term used for basic training of horses.

9 Metamemory in Apparatus The experimental stall, as seen in Figure 3 was in the same stable as the fillies' home stalls, with the internal dimensions of 3.66 m by 3.66 m made from white oak wood manufactured by Zupet& Son Construction Inc. (Burlington, ON). This stall was facing southward however and instead of bedding had rubber mats on the floor manufactured by Royal Mat Inc. (Beauceville, Quebec). The northem wall and door were 1.23 m of white oak wood and 1.23 m of 2.54 cm steel pipe bars. In the centre of the southem wall there was a window that was 1.02 mfromthe floor and had dimensions of 0.69 m wide by 1.23 m high. On the south wall there were three identical 3 gallon red buckets manufactured by Enpac LLC (Eastlake, Ohio). Above each bucket was a white rectangular cardboard piece with a cut out shape in black construction paper (Figure, 5)- These shapes were a square, circle and triangle (Figure 5)- These were taped to the wall with standard packing tape. On the bars, in the middle of and above the three buckets there was a sign matching one of the signs above the bucket, it was made the same way but was stuck in the bars and is removable (Figure 3). In one of the buckets there was 0.25 kg of Ontario Crimped and Cleaned Oats, manufactured by Sharpe Farm Supplies Limited (Guelph, ON). Procedure The experiment took place in the morning and the evening before the fillies would go into their individual stalls (evening) or out to the paddock (moming), they were lead into the experiment stall one at a time. There was only ever one filly in this stall at a time. During Phase 1, the oats were placed in the bucket with the sign that matched the one on

10 Metamemory in Horses ^ 74

11 Metamemory in the bars above these buckets. The filly was then brought into the stall and held at a distance where the oats were not visible to her. She was then released and it was recorded which bucket she chose. The fillies were each given 5 minutes to make a choice of buckets. The first filly was then returned to her home (north facing) stall and the same was done with the second filly. The location of the oats always corresponded with the sign on the bars. This sign and therefore target location was different each session with the condition that no sign and location pairing was repeated consecutively. This Phase is repeated until the fillies reach a rate of success that is significantly above chance. In this case 33% correct choices is chance. When the fillies were successful in Phase 1 at a rate that is more than chance, the experiment moved to Phase 2. In this phase the information giving sign (above the buckets) was slightly obscured using a small, dark-coloured sheet. The experiment was carried out as it was in Phase 1, however the obscurity increasedfrom25% obscured, to 50% obscured to 75% obscured andfinallyfully obscured. For each degree of obscurity a number of sessions were conducted before moving on to the next and higher level of obscurity. The behaviours of the fillies were recorded during these sessions. There were a total of 32 sessions per filly in Phase 1 and 16 sessions in Phase 2. Results Figure 4 shows the results in Phase 1, which Bold Silver never was able to move out of. Figure 4 shows these results in the percentage of times that the fillies chose the correct bucket. Only My Fedish was able move on to Phase 2 with a significant goodness-of-fit test (x^= 5.78, p>0.33). This filly was unable to show any evidence of looking for information in Phase 2 yielding no results.

12

13 Metamemory in Discussion In undertaking this study I hypothesized that the results should reflect those of Hampton et al. (2004). In their study, Hampton et al. (2004) found evidence that rehus monkeys were able to use metacognition in order to look for information that would help them chose a tube that would get them a reward. On the other hand, Mussolino et al (2009) found that rats were unable to do this, unless they were forced to choose an informed cued path or an uninformed cue path that could have been due to operant conditioning. In my study, I used horses with three choices instead of two or four as were used in the afore mentioned studies. In my study I used thoroughbred fillies, the thoroughbreds have been bred for thousands of years for the horses flight instinct. These horses are therefore very skittish animals and this may have been why, during some of the trials, they refused to go to any bucket because they were frightened of it. These fillies may have not been representative of the average horse. Thoroughbreds have very tough breeding restrictions, if a thoroughbred does not have pure thoroughbred ancestry it is considered a different breed of horse. Control was middling in this study. The fillies, as they entered the stall, could have glanced at where the food was located. However, due to their low success rate, this is improbable. The stables were empty when the first filly did her experiment, however, when the second filly began her testing the first filly was in her home stall. This could have caused a distraction for the filly who was performing her trial, as she could hear the other filly rustling and eating. There was good control in how the cue sign was rotated every trial with the condition that one was never repeated on consecutive trials. Putting

14 Metamemory in Hoi^ZI oats in every bucket before the trial and then removing themfromtwo of the three buckets so the scent of oats remained in the other two buckets controlled for scent. For the duration of the experiment the researcher remained in place and did not indicate to the fillies where the target was located by making gestures or standing near it. The fillies were also given five minutes to make a choice and although only theirfirstchoice was counted, sometimes they would put their noses in all three buckets without touching the oats. Perhaps the fillies were given too much time to make their choices. However, I do not believe that this was case or they would have made a higher number of correct choices in phase 1. In phase 2 the sheet used could have appeared frightening to the fillies. Yet, I would say that it was not, seeing as in the wintertime they wear horse blankets, thick sheets that protect themfromthe elements, and there is no wind inside of the stables that would have moved the sheet. These fillies were both only two years old. Perhaps if they were older and had more training experience they would have preformed better at these tasks because they would realize that they were being taught something, having been through similar situations before in training. Also, the features of the experimental stall were very similar to the features of the fillies' home stalls. This may have produced a tendency to choose the bucket in the comer where they are used to receiving food, the triangle in this case. In this study I had not investigated that but it would be an interesting subject to investigate. The fillies also had to leave for the racetrack, so the numbers of trials were not as many as they could have been. This study could have been conducted better if it had been conducted on a larger scale and with different breeds of horses as well, incase these thoroughbred fillies have

15 Metamemory in Hor^J^ produced skewed data. If I had conducted more phase 1 training, then the both fillies may have gotten to a point where they were operating above chance and they may have got to an even higher percentage of correct choices than My Fedish did. To my knowledge I did not relay any cues to the fillies but because of my knowledge of the hypothesis, I could have relayed unintentional cues. This again though is unlikely, as the fillies did not do very well on these tasks. Yet, I could have unintentionally guided them to the incorrect buckets, with where I was looking perhaps. I could have used an automated system to bring the horses into the experimental stall so that we would never see each other or have physical contact. However I do not think this technology is available to us yet. I could have used computer screens to display the shapes and a computer as well to chose what shape would be the one with the oats and thus on the sign every trial. This would have lessened the likelihood of myself unintentionally creating a pattern that the fillies could learn. Also a screen could be used where the bars on the stall were and the window, so that the fillies would not become distracted or take cuesfiromanything they saw. The experimental stall could also be made soundproof for this same reason. The experimental stall could also be made to look different than the fillies' home stalls so that they would not tend to choose the bucketfromwhich they were used to getting their food in. From this point research could be conducted on other animals to see if it is primates alone who can perform this task. Foraging animals such as squirrels could be used for similar research as they need to remember where they hurry their nuts. They might think about what they know and do not know more than a horse would. Variations on this study could be made and different ways in which to study metamemory could be

16 Metamemory in Hor^ discovered. Also, when rehus monkeys are successful on this task, their brain activity could be measured and the location of metamemory in other animal brains could be studied. This research could also be extended to humans, by getting humans to think about what they do and do not know, to create a more efficient way of testing this for animals.

17 Metamemory in Hoi^ ^ References Hampton, R., Zivin, A., &, Murray, E. (2004). Rhesus monkeys (macaca mulatta) discriminate between knowing and not knowing and collect information as needed before acting. Animal Cognition, 7, Musolino, E., Cole, M., & Roberts, W. (2009). Rats choose to know: Metacognition in A rodenxl Under Review, 1-35.