Capuchins (Cebus apella) can solve a means-end problem.

Yocom, Anna M.; Boysen, Sarah T.

doi:10.1037/a0019369

Cited by 15 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The implications of the failures reported for Povinelli's chimpanzees (2000) are problematic, relative to findings with other captive nonhuman primates (e.g., Deblauwe et al, 2006;Fragaszy et al, 2004;Sakura and Matsuzawa, 1991;Tonooka et al, 1997;Westergaard et al, 1995;Yocom and Boysen, 2010), but especially given the demonstrated prowess of wild chimpanzees in extensive and creative use of objects as tools in their environment. Why would captive chimpanzees not exhibit knowledge of physical support when such capabilities are both advantageous and necessary for their survival in the wild?…”

mentioning

confidence: 81%

Comprehension of functional support by enculturated chimpanzees Pan troglodytes

Yocom

Boysen

2011

Current Zoology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies of causal understanding of tool relationships in captive chimpanzees have yielded disparate findings, particularly those reported by Povinelli & colleagues (2000) for tool tasks by laboratory chimpanzees. The present set of experiments tested nine enculturated chimpanzees on three versions of a support task, as described by Povinelli (2000), during which food rewards were presented in different experimental configurations. In Experiment 1, stimulus pairs included a choice between a cloth with a reward on the upper right corner or with a second reward off the cloth, adjacent to a corner, with the second pair comprised of a cloth with food on the upper right corner, and a second cloth with the reward on the substrate, partially covered. All subjects were successful with both test conditions in Experiment 1. In a second study, the experimental choices included one of two possible correct options, paired with one of three incorrect options, with the three incorrect choices all involving varying degrees of perceptual containment. All nine chimpanzees scored significantly above chance across all six conditions. In Experiment 3, four unique conditions were presented, combining one of two possible correct choices with one of two incorrect choices. Six of the subjects scored significantly above chance across the four conditions, and group performance on individual conditions was also significant. Superior performance was demonstrated by female subjects in Experiment 3, similar to sex differences in tool use previously reported for wild chimpanzees and some tool tasks in captive chimpanzees. The present results for Experiments 2 & 3 were significantly differed from those reported by Povinelli et al. (2000) for laboratory-born, peer-reared chimpanzees. One contribution towards the dramatic differences between the two study populations may be the significant rearing and housing differences of the chimpanzee groups. One explanation is that under conditions of enculturation, rich social interactions with humans and conspecifics, as well as active exploration of artifacts, materials, and other aspects of their physical environment had a significant impact on the animals' ability to recognize the support relationships among the stimulus choices. Overall, the present findings provide strong support for the hypothesis that our chimpanzee subjects based their responses on an understanding of functional support which represented one facet of their folk physics repertoire [Current Zoology 57 (4): 429-440, 2011]. Keywords Chimpanzees, Comparative cognition, Tool use, CausalityTool use by wild chimpanzees is a ubiquitous feature of daily life in many chimpanzee communities across equatorial Africa, and is represented by a range of cultures within these populations that regularly use tools that can be specific to the community (Boesch and Boesch, 1990;Boesch-Achermann and Boesch, 1993;Goodall, 1986;McGrew, 1992;Sakura and Matsuzawa, 1991;Whiten et al., 1999). Since the initial discoveries by Goodall (1964), each year,...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 81%

Comprehension of functional support by enculturated chimpanzees Pan troglodytes

Yocom

Boysen

2011

Current Zoology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In many respects, they are considered the “poor person’s chimpanzee” with cognitive skills closely in line with those shown by apes and Old World monkey species in a variety of tasks including, but not limited to, tests of quantity judgment, self control, tool use, concept formation, analogical reasoning, and spatial representations (Beran 2008; Beran et al 2008a, 2008b; D’Amato and Colombo 1988; Evans, Beran and Addessi 2010; Evans and Westergaard 2004; Flemming 2011; Judge, Evans and Vyas 2005; Kennedy and Fragaszy 2008; McGonigle, Chalmers and Dickinson 2003; Poti et al 2010; Wright and Katz 2006; Yocum and Boysen 2010). But, recent research has indicated that capuchin monkeys lack one capacity that both apes and Old World monkeys (and perhaps even other species) have been argued to possess: metacognition.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Sequential responding and planning in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella)

Beran

Parrish

2012

Anim Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous experiments have assessed planning during sequential responding to computer generated stimuli by Old World nonhuman primates including chimpanzees and rhesus macaques. However, no such assessment has been made with a New World primate species. Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) are an interesting test case for assessing the distribution of cognitive processes in the order Primates because they sometimes show proficiency in tasks also mastered by apes and Old World monkeys, but in other cases fail to match the proficiency of those other species. In two experiments, eight capuchin monkeys selected five arbitrary stimuli in distinct locations on a computer monitor in a learned sequence. In Experiment 1, shift trials occurred in which the second and third stimuli were transposed when the first stimulus was selected by the animal. In Experiment 2, mask trials occurred in which all remaining stimuli were masked after the monkey selected the first stimulus. Monkeys made more mistakes on trials in which the locations of the second and third stimuli were interchanged than on trials in which locations were not interchanged, suggesting they had already planned to select a location that no longer contained the correct stimulus. When mask trials occurred, monkeys performed at levels significantly better than chance, but their performance exceeded chance levels only for the first and the second selections on a trial. These data indicate that capuchin monkeys performed very similarly to chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys and appeared to plan their selection sequences during the computerized task, but only to a limited degree.

show abstract

“…Piaget’s support problem (Piaget 1952) has been used in a variety of species to test for their understanding of means-end connections (e.g., great apes: Povinelli et al 2000; Herrmann et al 2008; monkeys: Hauser et al 1999; Yocom and Boysen 2010; Yamazaki et al 2011; elephants: Irie-Sugimoto et al 2008; and kea: Auersperg et al 2009). It involves a target object (usually a piece of food) that is placed out of reach of the subject on a support (e.g., a piece of cloth or a wooden board) that is within the subject’s reach.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the classic setup, the subjects are presented with two choices: a support that carries a piece of reward, and a second support beside which another piece of reward has been placed. Subjects may solve this task spontaneously (e.g., Povinelli et al 2000; Herrmann et al 2008; Auersperg et al 2009; Yamazaki et al 2011) or learn to solve it after a number of sessions (e.g., Hauser et al 1999; Irie-Sugimoto et al 2008; Yocom and Boysen 2010). In either case, however, it remains unclear whether the subjects understood the causal structure of the task, or whether they solved the task based on perceptual cues such as contact between reward and support or perceptual containment of the reward within the support.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dogs learn to solve the support problem based on perceptual cues

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous recent studies have investigated how animals solve means-end tasks and unraveled considerable variation in strategies used by different species. Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) have typically performed comparably poorly in physical cognition tasks, but a recent study showed that they can solve the on–off condition of the support problem, where they are confronted with two boards, one with a reward placed on it and the other with a reward placed next to it. To explore which strategies dogs use to solve this task, we first tested 37 dogs with the on–off condition tested previously and then tested subjects that passed this condition with three transfer tasks. For the contact condition, the inaccessible reward was touching the second board. For the perceptual containment condition, the inaccessible reward was surrounded on three sides by the second board, but not supported by it, whereas for the gap condition, discontinuous boards were used. Unlike in the previous study, our subjects did not perform above chance level in the initial trials of the on–off condition, but 13 subjects learned to solve it. Their performance in the transfer tasks suggests that dogs can learn to solve the support problem based on perceptual cues, that they can quickly adopt new cues when old ones become unreliable, but also that some apparently inherent preferences are hard to overcome. Our study contributes to accumulating evidence demonstrating that animals typically rely on a variety of perceptual cues to solve physical cognition tasks, without developing an understanding of the underlying causal structure.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10071-014-0739-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Capuchins (Cebus apella) can solve a means-end problem.

Cited by 15 publications

References 40 publications

Comprehension of functional support by enculturated chimpanzees Pan troglodytes

Comprehension of functional support by enculturated chimpanzees Pan troglodytes

Sequential responding and planning in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella)

Dogs learn to solve the support problem based on perceptual cues

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About