| Home | [1–10] << 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >> [21–30] |
|
Anderson, J. R., Kuwahata, H., & Fujita, K. (2007). Gaze alternation during “pointing” by squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus)? Anim. Cogn., 10(2), 267–271.
Abstract: Gaze alternation (GA) is considered a hallmark of pointing in human infants, a sign of intentionality underlying the gesture. GA has occasionally been observed in great apes, and reported only anecdotally in a few monkeys. Three squirrel monkeys that had previously learned to reach toward out-of-reach food in the presence of a human partner were videotaped while the latter visually attended to the food, a distractor object, or the ceiling. Frame-by-frame video analysis revealed that, especially when reaching toward the food, the monkeys rapidly and repeatedly switched between looking at the partner's face and the food. This type of GA suggests that the monkeys were communicating with the partner. However, the monkeys' behavior was not influenced by changes in the partner's focus of attention.
|
|
Hobaiter, C., & Byrne, R. (2011). The gestural repertoire of the wild chimpanzee. Anim. Cogn., 14(5), 745–767.
Abstract: Great ape gestural communication is known to be intentional, elaborate and flexible; yet there is controversy over the best interpretation of the system and how gestures are acquired, perhaps because most studies have been made in restricted, captive settings. Here, we report the first systematic analysis of gesture in a population of wild chimpanzees. Over 266 days of observation, we recorded 4,397 cases of intentional gesture use in the Sonso community, Budongo, Uganda. We describe 66 distinct gesture types: this estimate appears close to asymptote, and the Sonso repertoire includes most gestures described informally at other sites. Differences in repertoire were noted between individuals and age classes, but in both cases, the measured repertoire size was predicted by the time subjects were observed gesturing. No idiosyncratic usages were found, i.e. no gesture type was used only by one individual. No support was found for the idea that gestures are acquired by ‘ontogenetic ritualization’ from originally effective actions; moreover, in detailed analyses of two gestures, action elements composing the gestures did not closely match those of the presumed original actions. Rather, chimpanzee gestures are species-typical; indeed, many are ‘family-typical’, because gesture types recorded in gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzee overlap extensively, with 24 gestures recorded in all three genera. Nevertheless, chimpanzee gestures are used flexibly across a range of contexts and show clear adjustment to audience (e.g. silent gestures for attentive targets, contact gestures for inattentive ones). Such highly intentional use of a species-typical repertoire raises intriguing questions for the evolution of advanced communication.
Keywords: Biomedical and Life Sciences
|
|
Cartmill, E., & Byrne, R. (2010). Semantics of primate gestures: intentional meanings of orangutan gestures. Anim. Cogn., 13(6), 793-804.
Abstract: Great ape gesture has become a research topic of intense interest, because its intentionality and flexibility suggest strong parallels to human communication. Yet the fundamental question of whether an animal species’ gestures carry specific meanings has hardly been addressed. We set out a systematic approach to studying intentional meaning in the gestural communication of non-humans and apply it to a sample of orangutan gestures. We propose that analysis of meaning should be limited to gestures for which (1) there is strong evidence for intentional production and (2) the recipient’s final reaction matches the presumed goal of the signaller, as determined independently. This produces a set of successful instances of gesture use, which we describe as having goal–outcome matches. In this study, 28 orangutans in three European zoos were observed for 9 months. We distinguished 64 gestures on structural grounds, 40 of which had frequent goal–outcome matches and could therefore be analysed for meaning. These 40 gestures were used predictably to achieve one of 6 social goals: to initiate an affiliative interaction (contact, grooming, or play), request objects, share objects, instigate co-locomotion, cause the partner to move back, or stop an action. Twenty-nine of these gestures were used consistently with a single meaning. We tested our analysis of gesture meaning by examining what gesturers did when the response to their gesture did not match the gesture’s meaning. Subsequent actions of the gesturer were consistent with our assignments of meaning to gestures. We suggest that, despite their contextual flexibility, orangutan gestures are made with the expectation of specific behavioural responses and thus have intentional meanings as well as functional consequences.
Keywords: Biomedical and Life Sciences
|
|
Subiaul, F., Romansky, K., Cantlon, J. F., Klein, T., & Terrace, H. (2007). Cognitive imitation in 2-year-old children (Homo sapiens): a comparison with rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Anim. Cogn., .
Abstract: Here we compare the performance of 2-year-old human children with that of adult rhesus macaques on a cognitive imitation task. The task was to respond, in a particular order, to arbitrary sets of photographs that were presented simultaneously on a touch sensitive video monitor. Because the spatial position of list items was varied from trial to trial, subjects could not learn this task as a series of specific motor responses. On some lists, subjects with no knowledge of the ordinal position of the items were given the opportunity to learn the order of those items by observing an expert model. Children, like monkeys, learned new lists more rapidly in a social condition where they had the opportunity to observe an experienced model perform the list in question, than under a baseline condition in which they had to learn new lists entirely by trial and error. No differences were observed between the accuracy of each species' responses to individual items or in the frequencies with which they made different types of errors. These results provide clear evidence that monkeys and humans share the ability to imitate novel cognitive rules (cognitive imitation).
|
|
Ushitani, T., Fujita, K., & Yamanaka, R. (2001). Do pigeons (Columba livia) perceive object unity? Anim. Cogn., 4(3), 153–161.
Abstract: Human infants perceive two rods moving in concert behind an occluder as one unitary rod. In four experiments we tested whether pigeons also perceive unity of objects. Pigeons were trained on a matching-to-sample task to discriminate between one unitary rod moving at a constant speed and two aligned rods moving together at the same speed. The latter stimulus was identical to the former except for a gap in the center. In experiment 1, we tested pigeons in probe trials in which a rectangle occluded the center of the sample rods, to see which comparison stimulus, the unitary rod or the aligned two rods, the subjects would match to the sample. Two of the three subjects pecked at the two rods significantly more often than at the unitary rod. In experiment 2, we trained the same pigeons to match the sample rods moving “in front of” the occluder. Pigeons persisted in matching two separate rods to the unitary rod moving in front of the occluder. In experiments 3 and 4, we used a parallelogram and an undulating shape as the occluder to alter the shape and the size of the portions above and below the occluder by the motion of the sample rods. Both subjects chose the two rods significantly more often than chance in experiment 3 and one of them did so in experiment 4. The results suggest that pigeons do not complete occluded portions even though the two elements move in concert. These negative results suggest that some alternative way of identifying objects may have evolved in pigeons.
|
|
Merchant, H., Fortes, A. F., & Georgopoulos, A. P. (2004). Short-term memory effects on the representation of two-dimensional space in the rhesus monkey. Anim. Cogn., 7(3), 133–143.
Abstract: Human subjects represent the location of a point in 2D space using two independent dimensions (x-y in Euclidean or radius-angle in polar space), and encode location in memory along these dimensions using two levels of representation: a fine-grain value and a category. Here we determined whether monkeys possessed the ability to represent location with these two levels of coding. A rhesus monkey was trained to reproduce the location of a dot in a circle by pointing, after a delay period, on the location where a dot was presented. Five different delay periods (0.5-5 s) were used. The results showed that the monkey used a polar coordinate system to represent the fine-grain spatial coding, where the radius and angle of the dots were encoded independently. The variability of the spatial response and reaction time increased with longer delays. Furthermore, the animal was able to form a categorical representation of space that was delay-dependent. The responses avoided the circumference and the center of the circle, defining a categorical radial prototype around one third of the total radial length. This radial category was observed only at delay durations of 3-5 s. Finally, the monkey also formed angular categories with prototypes at the obliques of the quadrants of the circle, avoiding the horizontal and vertical axes. However, these prototypes were only observed at the 5-s delay and on dots lying on the circumference. These results indicate that monkeys may possess spatial cognitive abilities similar to humans.
|
|
Fountain, S. B., Rowan, J. D., & Benson, D. M. J. (1999). Rule learning in rats: serial tracking in interleaved patterns. Anim. Cogn., 2(1), 41–54.
Abstract: Humans have the ability to chunk together information from nonadjacent serial positions in sequential patterns. For example, human subjects can extrapolate the pattern, A-M-B-N-C-O-D-P-E-..., to find the missing element, Q, by sorting pattern elements into two component interleaved subpatterns: A-B-C-D-E and M-N-O-P-... Two experiments investigated the ability of rats to reorganize pattern elements from nonadjacent serial positions into chunks not presented by the experimenter. Rats learned either a structured or unstructured sequence interleaved with elements of a repeating sequence (experiment 1) or an alternation sequence (experiment 2). In both experiments, rats learned the interleaved subpatterns at different rates. Acquisition rate was correlated with the structural properties of component subpatterns and the nature of the rules required to describe the interleaved subpatterns. The results indicate that rats are sensitive to the organization of nonadjacent elements in serial patterns and that they can detect and sort structural relationships in interleaved patterns.
|
|
Hampton, R. R., Zivin, A., & Murray, E. A. (2004). Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) discriminate between knowing and not knowing and collect information as needed before acting. Anim. Cogn., 7(4), 239–246.
Abstract: Humans use memory awareness to determine whether relevant knowledge is available before acting, as when we determine whether we know a phone number before dialing. Such metacognition, or thinking about thinking, can improve selection of appropriate behavior. We investigated whether rhesus monkeys ( Macaca mulatta) are capable of a simple form of metacognitive access to the contents of short-term memory. Monkeys chose among four opaque tubes, one of which concealed food. The tube containing the reward varied randomly from trial to trial. On half the trials the monkeys observed the experimenter baiting the tube, whereas on the remaining trials their view of the baiting was blocked. On each trial, monkeys were allowed a single chance to select the tube containing the reward. During the choice period the monkeys had the opportunity to look down the length of each tube, to determine if it contained food. When they knew the location of the reward, most monkeys chose without looking. In contrast, when ignorant, monkeys often made the effort required to look, thereby learning the location of the reward before choosing. Looking improved accuracy on trials on which monkeys had not observed the baiting. The difference in looking behavior between trials on which the monkeys knew, and trials on which they were ignorant, suggests that rhesus monkeys discriminate between knowing and not knowing. This result extends similar observations made of children and apes to a species of Old World monkey, suggesting that the underlying cognitive capacities may be widely distributed among primates.
|
|
Takeshita, H. (2001). Development of combinatory manipulation in chimpanzee infants (Pan troglodytes). Anim. Cogn., 4(3), 335–345.
Abstract: I made systematic observations of three infant chimpanzees aged 2–4 years, who participated in a series of diagnostic tests of combinatory manipulation. The tasks were stacking blocks, seriating nesting cups, and inserting an object into the corresponding hole in a plate or a box. These tasks were originally devised for developmental diagnosis of human infants. The chimpanzee infants displayed combinatory manipulation comparable to that of 1-year-old human infants. Common motor characteristics were observed across the tasks, namely “repetition” of actions, “adjustment” of actions, “reversal” of actions, and “shifts” of attention. Humans and chimpanzees share these actions when manipulating multiple objects to complete a task. Repetition, adjustment, and reversal of actions and shifts of attention underlie higher levels of cognition common to both species.
|
|
Zentall, T. R. (2006). Imitation: definitions, evidence, and mechanisms. Anim. Cogn., 9(4), 335–353.
Abstract: Imitation can be defined as the copying of behavior. To a biologist, interest in imitation is focused on its adaptive value for the survival of the organism, but to a psychologist, the mechanisms responsible for imitation are the most interesting. For psychologists, the most important cases of imitation are those that involve demonstrated behavior that the imitator cannot see when it performs the behavior (e.g., scratching one's head). Such examples of imitation are sometimes referred to as opaque imitation because they are difficult to account for without positing cognitive mechanisms, such as perspective taking, that most animals have not been acknowledged to have. The present review first identifies various forms of social influence and social learning that do not qualify as opaque imitation, including species-typical mechanisms (e.g., mimicry and contagion), motivational mechanisms (e.g., social facilitation, incentive motivation, transfer of fear), attentional mechanisms (e.g., local enhancement, stimulus enhancement), imprinting, following, observational conditioning, and learning how the environment works (affordance learning). It then presents evidence for different forms of opaque imitation in animals, and identifies characteristics of human imitation that have been proposed to distinguish it from animal imitation. Finally, it examines the role played in opaque imitation by demonstrator reinforcement and observer motivation. Although accounts of imitation have been proposed that vary in their level of analysis from neural to cognitive, at present no theory of imitation appears to be adequate to account for the varied results that have been found.
|