Use of the Hebb-Williams closed-field test as a comparative technique is examined. Restriction of analysis to total error zone scores on a standard problem battery is criticized, and examples are given of other performance measures which may be more sensitive to interspecies differences.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HebbD. O.WilliamsK.A method of rating animal intelligence. J. genet. Psychol., 1946, 34, 59–65.
2.
LathanC.FieldsP. E.A report on a test-retest performance of 38 college students and 27 white rats on the identical 25-choice elevated maze. J. genet. Psychol., 1936, 49, 283–296.
3.
PollardJ. S.A maze for comparative behaviour studies. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Univer. Canterbury, New Zealand, 1959.
4.
PollardJ. S.Rats and cats in the closed field test. Austral. J. Psychol., 1961, 13, 215–221.
5.
PollardJ. S.More rats and cats in the closed field test. Austral. J. Psychol., 1963, 15, 52–56.
6.
PollardJ. S.SampsonH.Scoring performance in the closed field test. Austral. J. Psychol., 1961, 13, 92–98.
7.
RabinovitchM. S.RosvoldH. E.A closed field intelligence test for rats. Canad. J. Psychol., 1951, 5, 122–128.
8.
WarrenJ. M.WarrenH. B.Interspecies differences in learning by carnivores?Percept. mot. Skills, 1959, 9, 346.
