4.5 Article

Lateralized behaviour in the domestic cat, Felis silvestris catus

期刊

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
卷 78, 期 2, 页码 537-541

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.06.010

关键词

cat; Felis silvestris catus; handedness; laterality; paw preference

资金

  1. Cats Protection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lateralized behaviour in the felids has been subject to little investigation. We examined the paw use of 42 domestic cats on three tasks designed to determine whether the animals performed asymmetrical motor behaviour. The influence of the cats' sex and age on their paw preferences was also explored. The distribution of the cats' paw preferences differed significantly between the three tasks. Task 1, the most complex exercise involving retrieval of a food treat from an empty jar, encouraged the most apparent display of lateralized behaviour, with all but one animal showing a strong preference to use either their left or right paw consistently. Tasks 2 (an exercise involving reaching for a toy suspended overhead) and 3 (a challenge involving reaching for a toy moving along the ground) encouraged ambilateral motor performance. Lateralized behaviour was strongly sex related. Male and female cats showed paw preferences at the level of the population, but in opposite directions. Females had a greater preference for using their right paw; males were more inclined to adopt their left paw. Feline age was unrelated to either strength or direction of preferred paw use. Overall, the findings suggest that there are two distinct populations of paw preference in the cat that cluster strongly around the animals' sex. The results also point to a relationship between lateralized behaviour and task complexity. More apparent patterns of lateralized behaviour were evident on more complex manipulatory tasks, hinting at functional brain specialization in this species. (C) 2009 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据