Systematic study of chimpanzee drawing.

Smith, D. A.

doi:10.1037/h0034135

Cited by 22 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Morris's work led to a number of subsequent experiments by others using similar techniques. Later Smith (1973) and Boysen (Boysen et al 1987) confirmed these results, but argued that the pattern resulted from the chimpanzee's placing marks toward the center of the vacant space; balance was an accident. Most chimpanzees presented with a figure that is offset from the center of the paper will mark on the opposite side, or on the figure itself (Fig.…”

Section: What About Apes?mentioning

confidence: 84%

Reasons for the preference for symmetry

Reber¹

2002

Behav Brain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Archaeology can provide two bodies of information relevant to the understanding of the evolution of human cognition -the timing of developments, and the evolutionary context of these developments. The challenge is methodological. Archaeology must document attributes that have direct implications for underlying cognitive mechanisms. One example of such a cognitive archaeology is found in spatial cognition. The archaeological record documents an evolutionary sequence that begins with ape-equivalent spatial abilities 2.5 million years ago and ends with the appearance of modern abilities in the still remote past of 400,000 years ago. The timing of these developments reveals two major episodes in the evolution in spatial ability, one, 1.5 million years ago and the other, one million years later. The two episodes of development in spatial cognition had very different evolutionary contexts. The first was associated with the shift to an open country adaptive niche that occurred early in the time range of Homo erectus. The second was associated with no clear adaptive shift, though it does appear to have coincided with the invasion of more hostile environments and the appearance of systematic hunting of large mammals. Neither, however, occurred in a context of modern hunting and gathering.thomas wynn is Professor of Anthropology at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs. He was one of the first archaeologists to make explicit use of psychological concepts in the interpretation of the archaeological record, and has published extensively on the cognitive abilities of early hominids. Cognitive implications.In most respects the cognitive requirements of these early bifaces were the same as Wynn: Archaeology and cognitive evolution 394 BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2002) 25:3Figure 4. 1.4 million year-old handaxe from West Natron, Tanzania. The artifact has a "global" bilateral symmetry. The lateral edges mirror one another in quality of shape, but are not congruent.Abstract: Lack of symmetry of stone tools does not require that hominids making asymmetric tools are incapable of doing better. By analogy, differences between stone tools of early humans and modern technology arose without genetic change. A conservative assumption is that symmetry of stone artifacts may have arisen simply because symmetrical tools work better when used for striking and chopping rather than scraping.Abstract: Long before signs of staged toolmaking appeared, Homo erectus made symmetrical tools. The handaxe is a flattened tear-drop shape, but often with edges sharpened all around. Before we assign their obsession with symmetry to an aesthetic judgment, we must consider whether it is possible that the symmetry is simply very pragmatic for one particular use in the many suggested.Abstract: Handaxe morphology is thought to be the first example of the imposition of arbitrary form. Handaxes may thus inform researchers about shared mental templates and evolving cognitive abilities. However, many factors, not related to changes in cognition (e.g., mat...

show abstract

Section: What About Apes?mentioning

confidence: 84%

Reasons for the preference for symmetry

Reber¹

2002

Behav Brain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Schiller discussed those responses as balancing the composition, ascertaining that Alpha was capable of intuiting a human‐like sense of order. Schiller's studies were followed by Morris (), Smith (), and later, Boysen, Berntson, and Prentice (). Like Schiller, these researchers reported that their chimpanzees marked on the figures or scribbled on blank space; however, they did not observe the balancing behavior observed by Schiller, and thus it appears problematic to claim that chimpanzees possess a sense of order akin to what is likely the origin of human aesthetic sense (Lenain, , ).…”

Section: Drawing Behavior In Chimpanzeesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In most cases, drawing occurs spontaneously, that is, without food rewards or special training, and apes will draw or paint as self‐gratifying play (Boysen et al., ; Lenain, ; Matsuzawa, ; Morris, ; Schiller, ; Smith, ; Tanaka, Tomonaga, & Matsuzawa, ). For this reason, drawing opportunities are sometimes proposed as environmental enrichment for great apes in captivity.…”

Section: Drawing Behavior In Chimpanzeesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Origin of Representational Drawing: A Comparison of Human Children and Chimpanzees

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To examine the evolutional origin of representational drawing, two experiments directly compared the drawing behavior of human children and chimpanzees. The first experiment observed free drawing after model presentation, using imitation task. From longitudinal observation of humans (N = 32, 11-31 months), the developmental process of drawing until the emergence of shape imitation was clarified. Adult chimpanzees showed the ability to trace a model, which was difficult for humans who had just started imitation. The second experiment, free drawing on incomplete facial stimuli, revealed the remarkable difference between two species. Humans (N = 57, 6-38 months) tend to complete the missing parts even with immature motor control, whereas chimpanzees never completed the missing parts and instead marked the existing parts or traced the outlines. Cognitive characteristics may affect the emergence of representational drawings.

show abstract

“…To the contrary, additional experience only seemed to have strengthened the tendency to treat this task associatively, given the relatively small number of trial types and the high number of training trials. This seems to qualify as a "could-learn" type of meaningful failure: Drawing, as operationalized here, is a competency that the rhesus monkeys might reasonably have demonstrated, but it is also possible that the cognitive demands of drawing, which has been demonstrated by apes (e.g., Boysen, Bernston, & Prentice, 1987;Iverson & Matsuzawa, 1996;Smith, 1973) are beyond the abilities of monkeys. What can be concluded at present is that rhesus monkeys have failed to demonstrate the capacity so far to draw in this way.…”

Section: "Could-learn" Failuresmentioning

confidence: 99%