4.8 Article

Jackdaws Respond to Human Attentional States and Communicative Cues in Different Contexts

期刊

CURRENT BIOLOGY
卷 19, 期 7, 页码 602-606

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.02.062

关键词

-

资金

  1. Biotechnology & Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) studentship
  2. German Academic Exchange Service
  3. Cambridge European Trust
  4. Royal Society University Research Fellowship
  5. BBSRC
  6. Royal Society and University of Cambridge
  7. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BBS/B/05354] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Humans communicate their intentions and disposition using their eyes [1, 2], whereas the communicative function of eyes in animals is less clear [3]. Many species show aversive reactions to eyes [4-6], and several species gain information from conspecifics' gaze direction by automatically coorienting with them [7]. However, most species show little sensitivity to more subtle indicators of attention than head orientation [3, 8] and have difficulties using such cues in a cooperative context [9, 10]. Recently, some species have been found responsive to gaze direction in competitive situations [11-13]. We investigated the sensitivity of jackdaws, pair-bonded social corvids that exhibit an analogous eye morphology to humans, to subtle attentional and communicative cues in two contexts and paradigms. In a conflict paradigm, we measured the birds' latency to retrieve food in front of an unfamiliar or familiar human, depending on the state and orientation of their eyes toward food. In a cooperative paradigm, we tested whether the jackdaws used familiar human's attentional or communicative cues to locate hidden food. Jackdaws were sensitive to human attentional states in the conflict situation but only responded to communicative cues in the cooperative situation. These findings may be the result of a natural tendency to attend to conspecifics' eyes or the effect of intense human contact during socialization.

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

4.8
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