| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> [11–20] |
|
Tomonaga, M. (2007). Relative numerosity discrimination by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): evidence for approximate numerical representations. Anim. Cogn., .
Abstract: Two adult chimpanzees were trained on a relative “numerosity” discrimination task. In each trial, two arrays containing different numbers of red dots were presented on a CRT monitor. The subjects were required to choose the array containing the larger number of dots. In Experiment 1, using numerosities between 1 and 8, 28 different pairs were presented repeatedly, and accuracy scores were analyzed to explore which cues the chimpanzee subjects utilized to perform the task. Multiple regression analyses revealed that the subjects' performance was (1) not simply controlled by the “numerical” difference between arrays, but that it was (2) best described by Fechner's Law-that is accuracy increased linearly with the logarithmic value of the numerical difference between arrays divided by the number in the larger of the two arrays. This relationship was maintained when using much larger numerosities (Experiment 3). In Experiment 2, the chimpanzees were tested on the effects of total area and density by manipulating dot size and presentation area. The results revealed that these factors clearly affected the subjects' performance but that they could not alone explain the results, suggesting that the chimpanzees did use relative numerosity difference as a discriminative cue.
|
|
Tommasi, L., & Polli, C. (2004). Representation of two geometric features of the environment in the domestic chick ( Gallus gallus). Anim. Cogn., 7(1), 53–59.
Abstract: We report experiments based on a novel test in domestic chicks ( Gallus gallus), designed to examine the encoding of two different geometric features of an enclosed environment: relative lengths of the walls and amplitude of the corners. Chicks were trained to search for a food reward located in one corner of a parallelogram-shaped enclosure. Between trials, chicks were passively disoriented and the enclosure was rotated, making reorientation possible only on the basis of the internal spatial structure of the enclosure. In order to reorient, chicks could rely on two sources of information: the relative lengths of the walls of the enclosure (associated to their left-right sense order) and the angles subtended by walls at corners. Chicks learned the task choosing equally often the reinforced corner and its rotational equivalent. Results of tests carried out in novel enclosures, the shapes of which were chosen ad hoc (1) to induce reorientation based only on the ratio of walls lengths plus sense (rectangular enclosure), or (2) to induce reorientation based only on corner angles (rhombus-shaped enclosure), suggested that chicks encoded both features of the environment. In a third test, in which chicks faced a conflict between these geometric features (mirror parallelogram-shaped enclosure), reorientation seemed to depend on the salience of corner angles. These results shed light on the elements of the environmental geometry which control spatial reorientation, and broaden the knowledge on the geometric representation of space in animals.
|
|
Tomasello, M., & Call, J. (2004). The role of humans in the cognitive development of apes revisited. Anim. Cogn., 7(4), 213–215.
|
|
Thomsen, L. R., Campbell, R. D., & Rosell, F. (2007). Tool-use in a display behaviour by Eurasian beavers (Castor fiber). Anim. Cogn., .
Abstract: Tool use is rare amongst rodents and has never been recorded in connection with agonistic displays. We witnessed a behaviour, stick display (StD), involving tool use in free-living Eurasian beavers (Castor fiber) that we conclude is a display behaviour. Two beavers were the main performers of the signal that was observed in at least six beavers from three families. Beavers reacted to displays by increased evasive and agonistic behaviours compared with their usual behavioural patterns when at territory borders. The behaviour was almost exclusively seen between rivals at territory borders. We suggest that the display is used in agonistic encounters, mainly in a territorial context.
|
|
Theall, L. A., & Povinelli, D. J. (1999). Do chimpanzees tailor their gestural signals to fit the attentional states of others? Anim. Cogn., 2(4), 207–214.
Abstract: The use of vocalizations and tactile gestures by seven juvenile chimpanzees was experimentally investigated. The subjects interacted with an experimenter who typically handed them food rewards. In some trials, however, the experimenter waited 20 s before doing so. In these trials the experimenter's eyes were either open or closed, or the experimenter was either looking away from the subject or looking directly at him/her inquisitively with head movements. Although the chimpanzees produced at least one of the non-visual gestures mentioned (touching/tapping the experimenter or vocalizing) in 72% of all experimental trials, these actions and vocalizations were deployed without regard to the attentional state of their potential recipient, despite evidence that the subjects noticed the postures that defined the experimenter's attentional state. The results are discussed in the context of the distinction between the evolution of an understanding of seeing/attention as an internal mental state versus an understanding of behavioral postures alone.
|
|
Tebbich, S., Seed, A. M., Emery, N. J., & Clayton, N. S. (2007). Non-tool-using rooks, Corvus frugilegus, solve the trap-tube problem. Anim. Cogn., 10(2), 225–231.
Abstract: The trap-tube problem is used to assess whether an individual is able to foresee the outcome of its actions. To solve the task, an animal must use a tool to push a piece of food out of a tube, which has a trap along its length. An animal may learn to avoid the trap through a rule based on associative processes, e.g. using the distance of trap or food as a cue, or by understanding relations between cause and effect. This task has been used to test physical cognition in a number of tool-using species, but never a non-tool-user. We developed an experimental design that enabled us to test non-tool-using rooks, Corvus frugilegus. Our modification of the task removed the cognitive requirements of active tool use but still allowed us to test whether rooks can solve the trap-tube problem, and if so how. Additionally, we developed two new control tasks to determine whether rooks were able to transfer knowledge to similar, but novel problems, thus revealing more about the mechanisms involved in solving the task. We found that three out of seven rooks solved the modified trap-tube problem task, showing that the ability to solve the trap-tube problem is not restricted to tool-using animals. We found no evidence that the birds solved the task using an understanding of its causal properties, given that none of the birds passed the novel transfer tasks.
|
|
Tebbich, S., Bshary, R., & Grutter, A. S. (2002). Cleaner fish Labroides dimidiatus recognise familiar clients. Anim. Cogn., 5(3), 139–145.
Abstract: Individual recognition has been attributed a crucial role in the evolution of complex social systems such as helping behaviour and cooperation. A classical example for interspecific cooperation is the mutualism between the cleaner fish Labroides dimidiatus and its client reef fish species. For stable cooperation to evolve, it is generally assumed that partners interact repeatedly and remember each other's past behaviour. Repeated interactions may be achieved by site fidelity or individual recognition. However, as some cleaner fish have more than 2,300 interactions per day with various individuals per species and various species of clients, basic assumptions of cooperation theory might be violated in this mutualism. We tested the cleaner L. dimidiatus and its herbivorous client, the surgeon fish Ctenochaetus striatus, for their ability to distinguish between a familiar and an unfamiliar partner in a choice experiment. Under natural conditions, cleaners and clients have to build up their relationship, which is probably costly for both. We therefore predicted that both clients and cleaners should prefer the familiar partner in our choice experiment. We found that cleaners spent significantly more time near the familiar than the unfamiliar clients in the first 2 minutes of the experiment. This indicates the ability for individual recognition in cleaners. In contrast, the client C. striatus showed no significant preference. This could be due to a sampling artefact, possibly due to a lack of sufficient motivation. Alternatively, clients may not need to recognise their cleaners but instead remember the defined territories of L. dimidiatus to achieve repeated interactions with the same individual.
|
|
Taubert, J., Weldon, K. B., & Parr, L. A. (2016). Robust representations of individual faces in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) but not monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Anim. Cogn., , 1–9.
Abstract: Being able to recognize the faces of our friends and family members no matter where we see them represents a substantial challenge for the visual system because the retinal image of a face can be degraded by both changes in the person (age, expression, pose, hairstyle, etc.) and changes in the viewing conditions (direction and degree of illumination). Yet most of us are able to recognize familiar people effortlessly. A popular theory for how face recognition is achieved has argued that the brain stabilizes facial appearance by building average representations that enhance diagnostic features that reliably vary between people while diluting features that vary between instances of the same person. This explains why people find it easier to recognize average images of people, created by averaging multiple images of the same person together, than single instances (i.e. photographs). Although this theory is gathering momentum in the psychological and computer sciences, there is no evidence of whether this mechanism represents a unique specialization for individual recognition in humans. Here we tested two species, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), to determine whether average images of different familiar individuals were easier to discriminate than photographs of familiar individuals. Using a two-alternative forced-choice, match-to-sample procedure, we report a behaviour response profile that suggests chimpanzees encode the faces of conspecifics differently than rhesus monkeys and in a manner similar to humans.
|
|
Tanaka, M., Tomonaga, M., & Matsuzawa, T. (2003). Finger drawing by infant chimpanzees ( Pan troglodytes). Anim. Cogn., 6(4), 245–251.
Abstract: We introduced a new technique to investigate the development of scribbling in very young infants. We tested three infant chimpanzees to compare the developmental processes of scribbling between humans and chimpanzees. While human infants start to scribble on paper at around the age of 18 months, our 13- to 23-month-old infant chimpanzees had never been observed scribbling prior to this study. We used a notebook computer with a touch-sensitive screen. This apparatus was able to record the location of the subjects' touches on the screen. Each touch generated a fingertip-sized dot at the corresponding on-screen location. During spontaneous interactions with this apparatus, all three infants and two mother chimpanzees left scribbles with their fingers on the screen. The scribbles contained not only simple dots or short lines, but also curves and hook-like lines or loops, most of which were observed in the instrumental drawings of adult chimpanzees. The results suggest that perceptual-motor control for finger drawing develops in infant chimpanzees. Two of the infants performed their first scribble with a marker on paper at the age of 20-23 months. Just prior to this, they showed a rapid increase in combinatory manipulation of objects. These findings suggest that the development of combinatory manipulation of objects as well as that of perceptual-motor control may be necessary for the emergence of instrumental drawing on paper.
|
|
Tanaka, M. (2007). Recognition of pictorial representations by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Anim. Cogn., 10(2), 169–179.
Abstract: In this study, I investigated chimpanzees' ability to recognize pictorial representations. Four adults and three juvenile chimpanzees were trained to choose images of photographs of flowers among 12 items belonging to four categories on a touch-sensitive monitor. As a generalization test, the following five types of images were presented: (1) novel photographs, (2) colored sketches (more realistic), (3) a colored clip art (cartoon-like images), (4) black-and-white line drawings, and (5) Kanji characters (as the control images). One adult and all three juvenile chimpanzees were able to choose any style of the nonphotographic images of flowers significantly above the chance level, whereas none could choose the correct Kanji characters corresponding to a flower significantly above the chance level. The other three adult chimpanzees' performance level did not exceed the chance level in terms of choosing nonphotographic images although they showed good transfer skills to novel photographs. The results revealed that not all chimpanzees could recognize pictures used by humans without training. The results also suggest “critical period” in acquisition of skill in recognizing pictures in chimpanzees. Only one adult chimpanzee, who had acquired skill in recognizing visual symbols, also recognized pictures aside from the juvenile chimpanzees. Her learning history might have aided her in acquiring this skill. The results of this study suggest a relationship between pictorial competence and symbolic one.
|