The ability to innovate, i.e., to exhibit new or modified learned behaviours, can facilitate adaptation to environmental changes or exploiting novel resources. We hereby introduce a comparative approach for studying innovation rate, the ‘Innovation Arena’ (IA), featuring the simultaneous presentation of 20 interchangeable tasks, which subjects encounter repeatedly. The new design allows for the experimental study of innovation per time unit and for uncovering group-specific problem-solving abilities – an important feature for comparing animals with different predispositions and life histories. We applied the IA for the first time to investigate how long-term captivity affects innovative capacities in the Goffin’s cockatoo, an avian model species for animal innovation. We found that fewer temporarily-captive wild birds are inclined to consistently interact with the apparatus in comparison to laboratory-raised birds. However, those that are interested solve a similar number of tasks at a similar rate, indicating no difference in the cognitive ability to solve technical problems. Our findings thus provide a contrast to previous literature, which suggested enhanced cognitive abilities and technical problem-solving skills in long-term captive animals. We discuss the impact and discrepancy between motivation and cognitive ability on innovation rate. Our findings contribute to the debate on how captivity affects innovation in animals.

Although several nonhuman animals have the ability to recognize and match templates in computerized tasks, we know little about their ability to recall and then physically manufacture specific features of mental templates. Across three experiments, Goffin cockatoos (Cacatua goffiniana), a species that can use tools in captivity, were exposed to two pre-made template objects, varying in either colour, size (long or short) or shape (I or L-shaped), where only one template was rewarded. Birds were then given the opportunity to manufacture versions of these objects themselves. We found that all birds carved paper strips from the same colour material as the rewarded template, and half were also able to match the size of a template (long and short). This occurred despite the template being absent at test and birds being rewarded at random. However, we found no evidence that cockatoos could carve L-shaped pieces after learning that L-shaped templates were rewarded, though their manufactured strips were wider than in previous tests. Overall, our results show that Goffin cockatoos possess the ability to physically adjust at least the size dimension of manufactured objects relative to a mental template. This ability has previously only been shown in New Caledonian crows, where template matching was suggested as a potential mechanism allowing for the cumulative cultural transmission of tool designs. Our results show that within avian tool users, the ability to recreate a physical template from memory does not seem to be restricted to species that have cumulative tool cultures.