Equine learning behaviour: accounting for ecological constraints and relationships with humans in experimental design.

w t v r e t t l l r t Murphy and Arkins (2007) present a broad and interesting eview which highlights our incomplete understanding of the diosyncrasies of equine learning. Most studies of learning in orses have adapted general experimental paradigms to compare quine cognitive abilities with those of other species (McCall, 990). As a result much of their review explores cross-species omparisons and previous attempts to place horses in a hierarhy of intelligence. Macphail (1996) argues that comparisons f performance on any given learning task are likely to be conounded by non-cognitive or ‘contextual’ species differences in otivation, attention and physical ability. Murphy and Arkins 2007) themselves describe how individual variation and poor orrelation between performance on different tasks cast doubt n the appropriateness of this approach. They also highlight he impact of experimental design on test outcome, which is specially pertinent given the applied nature of much equine esearch. The ultimate objective of any experiment will influnce its design and a number of the studies reviewed aimed o use learning tests to assess animals’ suitability for training. urphy and Arkins’ (2007) goal is the application of learning esearch to maximise the potential benefits of the human–horse elationship to both parties. We would suggest that future studes could best achieve this by focusing on the development of nambiguous, horse-specific tests that combine rigorous scintific method with an appreciation of horses’ evolutionary istory, ecological niche and current management. Tailoring ests to species gives us greater confidence in their conclusions. acked by biologically relevant experiments that robustly reflect quine cognitive and learning abilities, we are better placed o unravel the sources of variation both within and between pecies.