Observations on spontaneous hand use in the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus)

Box, Hilary O.

doi:10.1007/bf02383117

Cited by 75 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…No directional bias is present in the group (in our colony 21 prefer the left hand, 17 the right hand and only 2 have shown no consistent hand preference). The studies of colonies of common marmosets by Matoba et al (1991) andde Sousa et al (2001) show a similar absence of group bias in the marmosets when reaching for food, although slightly more marmosets appear to prefer the left than the number preferring the right hand, as seen in our colony and noted first by Box (1977).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Hand and paw preferences in relation to the lateralized brain

Rogers

2008

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

196

162

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hand preferences of primates are discussed as part of the broad perspective of brain lateralization in animals, and compared with paw preferences in non-primates. Previously, it has been suggested that primates are more likely to express a species-typical hand preference on complex tasks, especially in the case of coordinated hand use in using tools. I suggest that population-level hand preferences are manifested when the task demands the obligate use of the processing specialization of one hemisphere, and that this depends on the nature of the task rather than its complexity per se. Depending on the species, simple reaching tasks may not demand the obligate use of a specialized hemisphere and so do not constrain limb/hand use. In such cases, individuals may show hand preferences that are associated with consistent differences in behaviour. The individual's hand preference is associated with the expression of behaviour controlled by the hemisphere contralateral to the preferred hand (fear and reactivity in left-handed individuals versus proactivity in right-handed individuals). Recent findings of differences in brain structure between left-and right-handed primates (e.g. somatosensory cortex in marmosets) have been discussed and related to potential evolutionary advances.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Hand and paw preferences in relation to the lateralized brain

Rogers

2008

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

196

162

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Manual specialization (i.e. laterality of function across tasks but within subjects) has been less often studied and rarely found (Box, 1977). Humanlike handedness (i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Box (1977) studied seven spontaneous activities in the species and found a significant left hand preference for only two feeding activities. ROTHE (1973) found no evidence of handedness, or even task specialization, in spontaneous activities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

True handedness in the cotton-top tamarin (Saguinus oedipus)?

Diamond

McGrew

1994

Primates

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Hand use for 8 activities was studied in 20 captive cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus). The purpose of the study was to discover if hand preferences existed across tasks and across subjects, and, if so, whether these followed the patterns of preference in MACNEILAGE et al.'s (1987) "postural origins" theory of the evolution of hand preference and hemispheric specialization in primates. This theory suggests that, for haplorines, the right hand is used preferentially for manipulative acts while the left hand is used preferentially for visually guided acts. The study showed statistically significant right hand preferences for six of the seven actions which produced sufficient data to be tested. The strength and consistency of this preference makes this study the first to suggest true handedness in a non-human primate species. Deviations from the pattern were seen in scratching and other actions when performed in a vertical posture, but these deviations took the form of a weakening of the right hand preference rather than a reversal. The findings of the study may be seen as supporting MACNEILAGE et al. 's (1987) theory only if the actions studied are all considered to be manipulative, which can be argued to be the case, though some of the actions were also visually guided.

show abstract

“…Reviewing earlier studies of a lefthand preference in food-related or reaching behaviours in monkeys (see e.g. Box, 1977) and prosimians (see below), MacNeilage, Studdert-Kennedy & Lindblom (1 987) propose that in prosimians a left-hand/RH specialization evolved for visually guided movement, reflecting (or leading to?) RH mediation of spatial processing ; concurrently a right-hand/LH control developed of postural support during an upright stance.…”

Section: Primatesmentioning

confidence: 97%

Animal asymmetry and human heredity: Dextrality, tool use and language in evolution–10 years after Walker (1980)

Bradshaw

1991

British J of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At the time of the last major review on this subject in the British Journal of Psychology (Walker, 1980) there was, with a few notable exceptions, little evidence of anatomical or behavioural asymmetries in non-human species at all comparable to our own. In the past decade the picture has changed dramatically, and now includes invertebrates from the Cambrian formations of half a billion years ago, many species of birds, rats and mice, antelopes, cats, dogs, whales, and primates. Asymmetries may differ as a function of sex (including hormone status-females of many species including humans appearing more lateralized at a motor level), developmental status and environmental influences. Effects may be manifest anatomically (limb or brain dimensions), or at a sensory, cognitive or motor level (paw preference, turning biases). A recurring observation across species is that the right hemisphere seems to be weakly specialized for spatial and emotional roles, and the left for learning, discriminatory and communicatory functions. Three million years ago our hominid ancestors were more or less fully bipedal, developed the first stone tools and were dextral in manipulating them. However, tool use seems not to have driven the evolution of language, our other strongly lateralized capacity. Evolutionary scenarios for bipedalism, tool use and language are discussed, together with the question of whether human language is continuous, in an evolutionary sense, with earlier primate call systems.

show abstract

Observations on spontaneous hand use in the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus)

Cited by 75 publications

References 3 publications

Hand and paw preferences in relation to the lateralized brain

Hand and paw preferences in relation to the lateralized brain

True handedness in the cotton-top tamarin (Saguinus oedipus)?

Animal asymmetry and human heredity: Dextrality, tool use and language in evolution–10 years after Walker (1980)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About