| Home | << 1 2 >> |
|
Anderson, J. R., Kuroshima, H., Kuwahata, H., & Fujita, K. (2004). Do squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) and capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) predict that looking leads to touching? Anim. Cogn., 7(3), 185–192.
Abstract: Squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) and capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) were tested using an expectancy violation procedure to assess whether they use an actor's gaze direction, signaled by congruent head and eye orientation, to predict subsequent behavior. The monkeys visually habituated to a repeated sequence in which the actor (a familiar human or a puppet) looked at an object and then picked it up, but they did not react strongly when the actor looked at an object but then picked up another object. Capuchin monkeys' responses in the puppet condition were slightly more suggestive of expectancy. There was no differential responding to congruent versus incongruent look-touch sequences when familiarization trials were omitted. The weak findings contrast with a strongly positive result previously reported for tamarin monkeys. Additional evidence is required before concluding that behavior prediction based on gaze cues typifies primates; other approaches for studying how they process attention cues are indicated.
|
|
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.
|
|
Paukner, A., Anderson, J. R., & Fujita, K. (2006). Redundant food searches by capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella): a failure of metacognition? Anim. Cogn., 9(2), 110–117.
Abstract: This study investigated capuchin monkeys' understanding of their own visual search behavior as a means to gather information. Five monkeys were presented with three tubes that could be visually searched to determine the location of a bait. The bait's visibility was experimentally manipulated, and the monkeys' spontaneous visual searches before tube selection were analyzed. In Experiment 1, three monkeys selected the baited tube significantly above chance; however, the monkeys also searched transparent tubes. In Experiment 2, a bent tube in which food was never visible was introduced. When the bent tube was baited, the monkeys failed to deduce the bait location and responded randomly. They also continued to look into the bent tube despite not gaining any pertinent information from it. The capuchin monkeys' behavior contrasts with the efficient employment of visual search behavior reported in humans, apes and macaques. This difference is consistent with species-related variations in metacognitive abilities, although other explanations are also possible.
|
|
Kuroshima, H., Fujita, K., Adachi, I., Iwata, K., & Fuyuki, A. (2003). A Capuchin monkey (Cebus apella) recognizes when people do and do not know the location of food. Anim. Cogn., 6(4), 283–291.
Abstract: In a previous study, Kuroshima and colleagues demonstrated that capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) learned to discriminate between a “knower” who inspected a box for food, and a “guesser” who did not. The aim of the present study was to specify whether the subjects learned a simple conditional discrimination or a causal relationship that seeing leads to knowing. In experiment 1, we introduced five types of novel containers to two subjects. Each container was of different shape and color. The subjects gradually learned to reach toward the container the knower suggested. In experiment 2, we diversified the behavior of the knower and the guesser. In experiment 3, in order to eliminate the possibility of discrimination based on differences in the magnitude and the complexity of two trainers, we equated their behaviors. One subject adapted to the novel behaviors of the knower and the guesser, successfully discriminating the two trainers. Thus this monkey clearly learned to use the inspecting action of the knower and the non-inspecting action of the guesser as a discriminative cue to recognize the baited container. This result suggests that one capuchin monkey learned to recognize the relationship between seeing and knowing.
|
|
Takimoto, A., & Fujita, K. (2008). Are horses (Equus caballus) sensitive to human attentional states? In IESM 2008.
Abstract: The ability to reliably detect what others are attending to seems important for social species to interact with their partners. Domestic horses (Equus caballus) have lived with humans for over five thousand years, hence they might have developed sensitivity to human attention. In the present study, we investigated whether horses would discriminate the situation in which a human experimenter could see them from the situation in which she could not. Specifically, we tested whether horses understand the role of eyes in human attentional states, produce more visual gestures when the experimenter can see their begging behaviors and produce more auditory or tactile gestures when she can not. We used with a slight modification the paradigm that previously yielded support for chimpanzee understanding of human attention (Hostetter et al. 2007). Twelve horses were offered food by the experimenter who showed various attentional states in front of them. We scored frequency of begging behaviors by the horses. In experiment 1, we set three kinds of condition: hand over the eyes, hand over the mouth and away. In the last condition there was only a food in front of horses, which was a control condition. The results showed that horses produced more auditory or tactile begging behaviors when the experimenter“s eyes were not visible than when her eyes were visible, but there was no difference in visual begging behaviors. In experiment 2, we set two kinds of condition: eyes closed and eyes open. The horses also produced more auditory or tactile begging behaviors when the experimenter”s eyes were closed than when they were open. However, there was no difference in visual begging behaviors. These results show that horses discriminate the situation in which humans can see from that in which humans can not. Of special interest, horses increased only auditory or tactile behaviors, not all types of communicative behaviors, when the experimenter could not see their begging behaviors. This result suggests that horses are sensitive to human attentional states. Moreover, horses may do recognize the eyes as an important indicator of whether or not humans will respond to their behavior and they may be able to behave flexibly depending upon human attentional states
Keywords: Horses; Attentional state; Begging behavior
|