|
|
Hopkins, W. D., & Parr, L. A. (1998). Lateralized behavior and lymphocyte counts in chimpanzees (pan troglodytes): A cross-sectional and longitudinal assessment. Developmental Neuropsychology, 14(4), 519–533.
Abstract: Cross?sectional and longitudinal assessment of lymphocyte count and behavioral laterality was examined in a sample of captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) to assess the validity of the Geschwind?Behan?Galaburda (GBG) theory of cerebral lateralization. For the cross?sectional analysis, chimpanzees classified as right?handed for feeding exhibited lower lymphocyte counts than chimpanzees classified as either ambiguously handed or left?handed. Longitudinal analysis indicated that some measures of laterality within the first 3 months of life predicted (a) direction of hand preference at 2 to 5 years of age and (b) lymphocyte counts for the first 3 years of life. The association between lymphocyte count and behavioral laterality was more evident in males than females. Taken together, the results support some aspects of the GBG theory.
|
|
|
|
Hostetter, A. B., Cantero, M., & Hopkins, W. D. (2001). Differential use of vocal and gestural communication by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in response to the attentional status of a human (Homo sapiens). J. Comp. Psychol., 115(4), 337–343.
Abstract: This study examined the communicative behavior of 49 captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), particularly their use of vocalizations, manual gestures, and other auditory- or tactile-based behaviors as a means of gaining an inattentive audience's attention. A human (Homo sapiens) experimenter held a banana while oriented either toward or away from the chimpanzee. The chimpanzees' behavior was recorded for 60 s. Chimpanzees emitted vocalizations faster and were more likely to produce vocalizations as their 1st communicative behavior when a human was oriented away from them. Chimpanzees used manual gestures more frequently and faster when the human was oriented toward them. These results replicate the findings of earlier studies on chimpanzee gestural communication and provide new information about the intentional and functional use of their vocalizations.
|
|
|
|
Hopkins, W. D., Taglialatela, J. P., & Leavens, D. A. (2007). Chimpanzees differentially produce novel vocalizations to capture the attention of a human. Anim. Behav., 73(2), 281–286.
Abstract: Chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes, produce numerous species-atypical signals when raised in captivity. We examined contextual elements of the use of two of these vocal signals, the `raspberry' and the extended grunt. Our results demonstrate that these vocalizations are not elicited by the presence of food, but instead function as attention-getting signals. These findings reveal a heretofore underappreciated category of animal signals: attention-getting sounds produced in novel environmental circumstances. The invention and use of species-atypical signals, considered in relation to group differences in signalling repertoires in apes in their natural habitats, may index a generative capacity in these hominoid species without obvious corollary in other primate species.
|
|
|
|
Russell, J. L., Braccini, S., Buehler, N., Kachin, M. J., Schapiro, S. J., & Hopkins, W. D. (2005). Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) intentional communication is not contingent upon food. Anim. Cogn., 8(4), 263–272.
Abstract: Studies of great apes have revealed that they use manual gestures and other signals to communicate about distal objects. There is also evidence that chimpanzees modify the types of communicative signals they use depending on the attentional state of a human communicative partner. The majority of previous studies have involved chimpanzees requesting food items from a human experimenter. Here, these same communicative behaviors are reported in chimpanzees requesting a tool from a human observer. In this study, captive chimpanzees were found to gesture, vocalize, and display more often when the experimenter had a tool than when she did not. It was also found that chimpanzees responded differentially based on the attentional state of a human experimenter, and when given the wrong tool persisted in their communicative efforts. Implications for the referential and intentional nature of chimpanzee communicative signaling are discussed.
|
|
|
|
Parr, L. A., Hopkins, W. D., & de Waal, F. B. (1997). Haptic discrimination in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella): evidence of manual specialization. Neuropsychologia, 35(2), 143–152.
Abstract: Two experiments investigated the effects of haptic and visual discrimination on hand preference in 22 brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). The percentage of left-handed subjects in Experiment 1 were 63.6%, 45.5%, and 18.2% for haptic, bipedal, and quadrupedal reaching, respectively. In Experiment 2, the haptic demands of the task were manipulated by using additional food types and another tactile medium. Left-hand preferences were further strengthened when reaching into water compared to pineshavings in Experiment 1. Reaching with no tactile interference resulted in equal numbers of lateralized and nonlateralized subjects. These results show that when reaching demands the use of haptic cues, as opposed to visual ones, monkeys shift towards greater left hand use. This is consistent with what is known about right hemisphere superiority for haptic discrimination in humans.
|
|
|
|
Parr, L. A., Winslow, J. T., & Hopkins, W. D. (1999). Is the inversion effect in rhesus monkeys face-specific? Anim. Cogn., 2(3), 123–129.
Abstract: This study investigated the face inversion effect in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Face stimuli consisted of ten black-and-white examples of unfamiliar rhesus monkey faces, brown capuchin faces, and human faces. Two non-face categories included ten examples of automobiles and abstract shapes. All stimuli were presented in a sequential matching-to-sample format using an automated joystick-testing paradigm. Subjects performed significantly better on upright than on inverted presentations of automobiles, rhesus monkey and capuchin faces, but not human faces or abstract shapes. These results are inconsistent with data from humans and chimpanzees that show the inversion effect only for categories of stimuli for which subjects have developed expertise. The inversion effect in rhesus monkeys does not appear to be face-specific, and should therefore not be used as a marker of specialized face processing in this species.
|
|
|
|
Hostetter, A. B., Russell, J. L., Freeman, H., & Hopkins, W. D. (2007). Now you see me, now you don't: evidence that chimpanzees understand the role of the eyes in attention. Anim. Cogn., 10(1), 55–62.
Abstract: Chimpanzees appear to understand something about the attentional states of others; in the present experiment, we investigated whether they understand that the attentional state of a human is based on eye gaze. In all, 116 adult chimpanzees were offered food by an experimenter who engaged in one of the four experimental manipulations: eyes closed, eyes open, hand over eyes, and hand over mouth. The communicative behavior of the chimpanzees was observed. More visible behaviors were produced when the experimenter's eyes were visible than when the experimenter's eyes were not visible. More vocalizations were produced when the experimenter's eyes were closed than when they were open, but there were no differences in other attention getting behaviors. There was no effect of age or rearing history. The results suggest that chimpanzees use the presence of the eyes as a cue that their visual gestures will be effective.
|
|
|
|
Parr, L. A., Winslow, J. T., Hopkins, W. D., & de Waal, F. B. (2000). Recognizing facial cues: individual discrimination by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). J Comp Psychol, 114(1), 47–60.
Abstract: Faces are one of the most salient classes of stimuli involved in social communication. Three experiments compared face-recognition abilities in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). In the face-matching task, the chimpanzees matched identical photographs of conspecifics' faces on Trial 1, and the rhesus monkeys did the same after 4 generalization trials. In the individual-recognition task, the chimpanzees matched 2 different photographs of the same individual after 2 trials, and the rhesus monkeys generalized in fewer than 6 trials. The feature-masking task showed that the eyes were the most important cue for individual recognition. Thus, chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys are able to use facial cues to discriminate unfamiliar conspecifics. Although the rhesus monkeys required many trials to learn the tasks, this is not evidence that faces are not as important social stimuli for them as for the chimpanzees.
|
|
|
|
Hopkins, W. D., & Washburn, D. A. (2002). Matching visual stimuli on the basis of global and local features by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Anim. Cogn., 5(1), 27–31.
Abstract: This study was designed to examine whether chimpanzees and monkeys exhibit a global-to-local precedence in the processing of hierarchically organized compound stimuli, as has been reported for humans. Subjects were tested using a sequential matching-to-sample paradigm using stimuli that differed on the basis of their global configuration or local elements, or on both perceptual attributes. Although both species were able to discriminate stimuli on the basis of their global configuration or local elements, the chimpanzees exhibited a global-to-local processing strategy, whereas the rhesus monkeys exhibited a local-to-global processing strategy. The results suggest that perceptual and attentional mechanisms underlying information-processing strategies may account for differences in learning by primates.
|
|
