Processing of above/below categorical spatial relations by baboons (Papio papio)

Dépy, Delphine; Fagot, Joël; Vauclair, Jacques

doi:10.1016/s0376-6357(99)00055-8

Cited by 21 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Apart from the performance differences revealed in the above cited studies the suggestion that not all relational judgments are necessarily the same is supported also by the results of Dépy, Fagot & Vauclair (1999) and Spinozzi, Lubrano, & Truppa (2004). These studies showed that baboons and capuchin monkeys, respectively, acquired a spatial relational matching task in which the relations ‘Above’ and ‘Below’ were instantiated in the sample and comparison choice stimuli by a dot stimulus presented either above or below a horizontal line stimulus.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Can old-world and new-world monkeys judge spatial above/below relations to be the same or different? Some of them, but not all of them

Thompson

Flemming

Hagmann

2016

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) with the aid of token training can achieve analogical reasoning, or the ability to understand relations-between-relations (e.g., Premack, 1976; Thompson, & Boysen, 1997). However, extraordinarily few numbers of old- and new-world monkeys have demonstrated this ability in variants of Relational Matching to Sample tasks. Moreover, the rarity of replications leaves open the question of whether the results are normative for other captive colonies of the same species. In experiment one we attempted to replicate whether Old World rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) might demonstrate the same level of proficiency on a Spatial Above/Below Relational Matching task as reported for Old World baboons (Papio papio). None of the Rhesus monkeys attained above chance performances over 10,000 training trials. In experiment two we attempted to replicate results demonstrating that New-World Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) match Above/Below relations. The Capuchin monkeys performed above chance only in the absence of ‘Clever Hans’ controls for cuing of the correct choice by the experimenters. These failures to replicate previously reported results demonstrate that some, but definitely not all monkeys can judge the equivalence of abstract ‘relations between relations’ and warrant further investigations into the behavioral and cognitive characteristics that underlie these similarities and differences within population and between individuals of different primate species.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Can old-world and new-world monkeys judge spatial above/below relations to be the same or different? Some of them, but not all of them

Thompson

Flemming

Hagmann

2016

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, bees required only 30 training trials to extract and master both relational concepts (i.e., ∼3 h of training), whereas several thousand of trials are generally required for similar concepts to develop in some primates (27). However, comparisons between bees' and primates' performances are not necessarily pertinent: Whereas bees could freely move in our experiments and their constant returns to the experimental setup revealed a high foraging motivation, conceptual learning in primates is usually tested in artificial laboratory environments in which animals are individually immobilized and far from biological relevant situations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simultaneous mastering of two abstract concepts by the miniature brain of bees

Avarguès‐Weber

Dyer

Combe

et al. 2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sorting objects and events into categories and concepts is a fundamental cognitive capacity that reduces the cost of learning every particular situation encountered in our daily lives. Relational concepts such as "same," "different," "better than," or "larger than"-among others-are essential in human cognition because they allow highly efficient classifying of events irrespective of physical similarity. Mastering a relational concept involves encoding a relationship by the brain independently of the physical objects linked by the relation and is, therefore, consistent with abstraction capacities. Processing several concepts at a time presupposes an even higher level of cognitive sophistication that is not expected in an invertebrate. We found that the miniature brains of honey bees rapidly learn to master two abstract concepts simultaneously, one based on spatial relationships (above/below and right/left) and another based on the perception of difference. Bees that learned to classify visual targets by using this dual concept transferred their choices to unknown stimuli that offered a best match in terms of dual-concept availability: their components presented the appropriate spatial relationship and differed from one another. This study reveals a surprising facility of brains to extract abstract concepts from a set of complex pictures and to combine them in a rule for subsequent choices. This finding thus provides excellent opportunities for understanding how cognitive processing is achieved by relatively simple neural architectures.concept learning | vision | insect | Apis mellifera

show abstract

“…If capuchins, like old-world monkeys were found to be handicapped with respect to their categorical analogical matching abilities this would suggest that analogical reasoning is a derived cognitive characteristic in the Hominoidea (apes and humans). Results from studies with baboons and capuchin monkeys on a categorical above/ below spatial matching task by, respectively, Dépy, Fagot, and Vauclair (1999) and Spinozzi, Lubrano, and Truppa (2004) suggest that unqualified acceptance of this hypothesis may well be premature.…”

Section: Broader Primate Categorical Analogy Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In these studies baboons (Papio papio) (Dépy et al, 1999) and tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) (Spinozzi et al, 2004) matched pairs of "bar and dot" stimuli on the basis of the relative above and below location of the two constituent elements. For example, if the sample consisted of a dot above the horizontal bar, then the correct matching alternative likewise involved a dot above a horizontal bar and the incorrect alternative involved a dot below a horizontal bar.…”

Section: Broader Primate Categorical Analogy Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concept Learning in Animals

Zentall¹,

Wasserman²,

Lazareva³

et al. 2008

CCBR

166

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Generally speaking, the study of concepts in cognitive psychology is anthropocentric with respect to both content and theory. A broader comparative perspective on the various forms of concept learning not only provides a more inclusive view of conceptual behavior, but it also provides a more objective perspective from which to identify underlying processes. We suggest that several of the major varieties of conceptual classes claimed to be uniquely human are also exhibited by nonhuman animals. We present evidence for the formation of several sorts of conceptual stimulus classes by nonhuman animals: perceptual classes involving classification according to the shared attributes of objects, associative classes or functional equivalences in which stimuli form a class based on common associations, relational classes, in which the conceptual relationship between or among stimuli defines the class, and relations between relations, in which the conceptual (analogical) relationship is defined by the relation between classes of stimuli. We conclude that not only are nonhuman animals capable of acquiring a wide variety of concepts, but that the underlying processes that determine concept learning are also likely to be quite similar.

show abstract

Processing of above/below categorical spatial relations by baboons (Papio papio)

Cited by 21 publications

References 18 publications

Can old-world and new-world monkeys judge spatial above/below relations to be the same or different? Some of them, but not all of them

Can old-world and new-world monkeys judge spatial above/below relations to be the same or different? Some of them, but not all of them

Simultaneous mastering of two abstract concepts by the miniature brain of bees

Concept Learning in Animals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About