Abstract: Non-human animals vary in their ability to make and use tools. The goal of the present study was to further explore what, if anything, differs between tool-users and non-tool-users, and whether these differences lie in the conceptual or motor domain. We tested two species that typically do not use tools-cotton top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) and vervet monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops)-on problems that mirrored those designed for prolific tool users such as chimpanzees. We trained subjects on a task in which they could choose one of two canes to obtain an out-of-reach food reward. After training, subjects received several variations on the original task, each designed to examine a specific conceptual aspect of the pulling problem previously studied in other tool-using species. Both species recognized that effective pulling tools must be made of rigid materials. Subsequent conditions revealed significant species differences, with vervets outperforming tamarins across many conditions. Vervets, but not tamarins, had some recognition of the relationship between a tool's orientation and the position of the food reward, the relationship between a tool's trajectory and the substance that it moves on, and that tools must be connected in order to work properly. These results provide further evidence that tool-use may derive from domain-general, rather than domain-specific cognitive capacities that evolved for tool use per se.

Abstract: Numerous previous investigators have explained species differences in spatial memory performance in terms of differences in foraging ecology. In three experiments we attempted to extend these findings by examining the extent to which the spatial memory performance of echidnas (or “spiny anteaters”) can be understood in terms of the spatio-temporal distribution of their prey (ants and termites). This is a species and a foraging situation that have not been examined in this way before. Echidnas were better able to learn to avoid a previously rewarding location (to “win-shift”) than to learn to return to a previously rewarding location (to “win-stay”), at short retention intervals, but were unable to learn either of these strategies at retention intervals of 90 min. The short retention interval results support the ecological hypothesis, but the long retention interval results do not.

Abstract: Rats were exposed to a radial maze containing six black smooth arms and six wire-grid-covered arms and a striped 'exit arm' in experiment 1. The probability of a black or grid arm being baited (5/6 vs 1/6) with sunflower seeds was associated with its proximal cue for some rats (the Relevant Arm Cue group) but not for others (the Irrelevant Arm Cue group). All rats could terminate a trial and receive a highly preferred morsel of apple by entering the exit arm only after having sampled all six seed-baited arms. Relevant Arm Cue rats usually chose some arms from the more densely baited set before choosing an arm from the less densely baited set and made fewer reentries than Irrelevant Arm Cue rats. Although such clustered, higher choice accuracy in the Relevant Arm Cue group corresponds to human clustered, better recall of verbal items from lists hierarchically organized by categories, these rats did not similarly exhaustively retrieve items (arm locations). That is, when required to terminate a trial by entering the 'exit' arm for an apple morsel after having sampled all seed-baited arms, both groups were equally unable to withhold making nonrewarded premature exits. This nonexhaustive foraging search pattern was maintained in the next two experiments in which the radial maze was reduced to three black and three grid arms along with the striped 'exit' arm and in which black and grid arm cues were paired with number of seeds (eight or one) in an arm for Relevant Arm Cue rats. Although Relevant Arm Cue rats displayed perfect clustering by entering all eight-seeded arms before a one-seeded arm, they made more premature exits and reentries into eight-seeded arms in experiment 2 or when forced to enter all eight-seeded arms in experiment 3 than did Irrelevant Arm Cue rats. These foraging tendencies prevent accurate estimations of the amount of information (i.e., arm locations) rats can 'chunk'.

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.

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.