Species recognition by five macaque monkeys

Fujita, Kazuo

doi:10.1007/bf02381018

Cited by 101 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding may seem at odds with the results from Fujita (1987) showing that macaques from different species prefer to look at conspecific faces rather than faces of other macaque species. However, in his experiment, Fujita (1987) used a self-controlled single face presentation task in which monkeys had to press a lever to see either conspecifics or other macaques' faces. Our visual preference task is different and more closely matches the setup used by Mahajan et al (2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

“…This result extends those from Mahajan et al (2011) by showing that social categorization (i.e., as an out-group member) and the associated threat detection/perception are not restricted to conspecific faces but can guide visual attention towards novel species' faces. Returning to the results of Fujita (1987), we can assume that when given the choice by actively controlling the appearance of the faces, rhesus macaques had greater motivation to see conspecifics than potentially threatening novel species.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As reviewed by Pascalis and Wirth (2011) and Parr (2011), non-human primates also show experience-related looking preferences. Using a selfcontrolled single face presentation task, Fujita (1987) found that macaques from five different species preferred to look at their conspecifics' faces rather than at the faces of other macaque species, suggesting that conspecificity was guiding viewing preferences. Using a visual preference task, Sugita (2008) clarified the role of early exposure in the development of preferences for the faces of conspecifics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Seeing two faces together: preference formation in humans and rhesus macaques

Méary

et al. 2014

Anim Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans, great apes and old world monkeys show selective attention to faces depending on conspecificity, familiarity, and social status supporting the view that primates share similar face processing mechanisms. Although many studies have been done on face scanning strategy in monkeys and humans, the mechanisms influencing viewing preference have received little attention. To determine how face categories influence viewing preference in humans and rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta), we performed two eye-tracking experiments using a visual preference task whereby pairs of faces from different species were presented simultaneously. The results indicated that viewing time was significantly influenced by the pairing of the face categories. Humans showed a strong bias towards an own-race face in an Asian-Caucasian condition. Rhesus macaques directed more attention towards non-human primate faces when they were paired with human faces, regardless of the species. When rhesus faces were paired with faces from Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus) or chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), the novel species' faces attracted more attention. These results indicate that monkeys' viewing preferences, as assessed by a visual preference task, are modulated by several factors, species and dominance being the most influential. Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Seeing two faces together: preference formation in humans and rhesus macaques

Méary

et al. 2014

Anim Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Differential similarity influences the responses of nonhuman animals in much the same way as it influences the speaking of humans. Although it may not always be the case that humans and nonhuman animals categorize stimuli in the same way (see Roberts & Mazmanian, 1988;Yoshikubo, 1985;Fujita, 1987), based on the results presented here, one can conclude that both conceptual behavior and its underlying cognitive processes are generally similar in humans and nonhuman animals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

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

“…This technique has also proven useful in as a means of identifying the natural categories of nonhumans and to answer the question of whether these natural categorical distinctions approximate those made by humans (Thompson, 1995). Results of a multidimensional scaling procedure and cluster analyses, for example, were used as evidence by Fujita (1987) that macaque monkeys categorized pictures of conspecifics and other macaque species similarly to a morphological classification of macaques. Macaque monkeys representing five different species (M. arctiodes, M. fuscata, M. mulatta, M. nemestrina, & M. radiata) were trained to press a lever in order to view pictures of different species.…”

Section: Experimental Measures Of Conceptual Categorizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Categorical Perception and Conceptual Judgments by Nonhuman Primates: The Paleological Monkey and the Analogical Ape

Thompson

Oden²

2000

Cognitive Science

213

166

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies of the conceptual abilities of nonhuman primates demonstrate the substantial range of these abilities as well as their limitations. Such abilities range from categorization on the basis of shared physical attributes, associative relations and functions to abstract concepts as reflected in analogical reasoning about relations between relations. The pattern of results from these studies point to a fundamental distinction between monkeys and apes in both their implicit and explicit conceptual capacities. Monkeys, but not apes, might be best regarded as "paleo-logicans" in the sense that they form common class concepts of identity on the basis of identical predicates (i.e., shared features). The discrimination of presumably more abstract relations commonly involves relatively simple procedural strategies mediated by associative processes likely shared by all mammals. There is no evidence that monkeys can perceive, let alone judge, relations-between-relations. This analogical conceptual capacity is found only in chimpanzees and humans. Interestingly, the "analogical ape," like the child, can make its analogical knowledge explicit only if it is first provided with a symbol system by which propositional representations can be encoded and manipulated

show abstract

Species recognition by five macaque monkeys

Cited by 101 publications

References 11 publications

Seeing two faces together: preference formation in humans and rhesus macaques

Seeing two faces together: preference formation in humans and rhesus macaques

Concept Learning in Animals

Categorical Perception and Conceptual Judgments by Nonhuman Primates: The Paleological Monkey and the Analogical Ape

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About