|
|
Quaresmini, C., Forrester, G. S., Spiezio, C., & Vallortigara, G. (2014). Social environment elicits lateralized behaviors in gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 128(3), 276–284.
Abstract: The influence of the social environment on lateralized behaviors has now been investigated across a wide variety of animal species. New evidence suggests that the social environment can modulate behavior. Currently, there is a paucity of data relating to how primates navigate their environmental space, and investigations that consider the naturalistic context of the individual are few and fragmented. Moreover, there are competing theories about whether only the right or rather both cerebral hemispheres are involved in the processing of social stimuli, especially in emotion processing. Here we provide the first report of lateralized social behaviors elicited by great apes. We employed a continuous focal animal sampling method to record the spontaneous interactions of a captive zoo-living colony of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and a biological family group of peer-reared western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla). We specifically focused on which side of the body (i.e., front, rear, left, right) the focal individual preferred to keep conspecifics. Utilizing a newly developed quantitative corpus-coding scheme, analysis revealed both chimpanzees and gorillas demonstrated a significant group-level preference for focal individuals to keep conspecifics positioned to the front of them compared with behind them. More interestingly, both groups also manifested a population-level bias to keep conspecifics on their left side compared with their right side. Our findings suggest a social processing dominance of the right hemisphere for context-specific social environments. Results are discussed in light of the evolutionary adaptive value of social stimulus as a triggering factor for the manifestation of group-level lateralized behaviors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
|
|
|
|
Herrmann, E., Melis, A. P., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Apes' use of iconic cues in the object-choice task. Anim. Cogn., 9(2), 118–130.
Abstract: In previous studies great apes have shown little ability to locate hidden food using a physical marker placed by a human directly on the target location. In this study, we hypothesized that the perceptual similarity between an iconic cue and the hidden reward (baited container) would help apes to infer the location of the food. In the first two experiments, we found that if an iconic cue is given in addition to a spatial/indexical cue – e.g., picture or replica of a banana placed on the target location – apes (chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas) as a group performed above chance. However, we also found in two further experiments that when iconic cues were given on their own without spatial/indexical information (iconic cue held up by human with no diagnostic spatial/indexical information), the apes were back to chance performance. Our overall conclusion is that although iconic information helps apes in the process of searching hidden food, the poor performance found in the last two experiments is due to apes' lack of understanding of the informative (cooperative) communicative intention of the experimenter.
|
|
|
|
Hoff, M. P., Powell, D. M., Lukas, K. E., & Maple, T. L. (1997). Individual and social behavior of lowland gorillas in outdoor exhibits compared with indoor holding areas. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 54(4), 359–370.
Abstract: The behavior of nine lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) living in three social groups at Zoo Atlanta was compared in an indoor holding area versus an outdoor exhibit. Focal animal data were collected for each animal during 15 min observation sessions, alternating between indoors and outdoors. A variety of solitary and social behaviors differed in the two conditions. All individual and social behaviors that showed a difference, except eating, occurred more indoors than outdoors. These included aggressive displays, reclining, self manipulation, and social examination of others. Additionally, the gorillas spent more time closer together in the indoor condition. A variety of other behaviors measured did not change between the two environments. There was a clear effect on behavior of the different housing conditions in which the gorillas were kept. It is suggested that the differences in aggressive behavior may be related to environmental complexity. It is further suggested that zoos should be aware that differences in behavior reported by caretaking staff, researchers and visitors may be a reflection of the differing environmental circumstances in which the animals are observed.
|
|
|
|
Call, J. (2006). Inferences by exclusion in the great apes: the effect of age and species. Anim. Cogn., 9(4), 393–403.
Abstract: This study investigated the ability of chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and bonobos to make inferences by exclusion using the procedure pioneered by Premack and Premack (Cognition 50:347-362, 1994) with chimpanzees. Thirty apes were presented with two different food items (banana vs. grape) on a platform and covered with identical containers. One of the items was removed from the container and placed between the two containers so that subjects could see it. After discarding this item, subjects could select between the two containers. In Experiment 1, apes preferentially selected the container that held the item that the experimenter had not discarded, especially if subjects saw the experimenter remove the item from the container (but without seeing the container empty). Experiment 3 in which the food was removed from one of the containers behind a barrier confirmed these results. In contrast, subjects performed at chance levels when a stimulus (colored plastic chip: Exp. 1; food item: Exp. 2 and Exp. 3) designated the item that had been removed. These results indicated that apes made inferences, not just learned to use a discriminative cue to avoid the empty container. Apes perceived and treated the item discarded by the experimenter as if it were the very one that had been hidden under the container. Results suggested a positive relationship between age and inferential ability independent of memory ability but no species differences.
|
|
|
|
Schwartz, B. L., Colon, M. R., Sanchez, I. C., Rodriguez, I. A., & Evans, S. (2002). Single-trial learning of “what” and “who” information in a gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla): implications for episodic memory. Anim. Cogn., 5(2), 85–90.
Abstract: Single-trial learning and long-term memory of “what” and “who” information were examined in an adult gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla). We presented the gorilla with a to-be-remembered food item at the time of study. In Experiment 1, following a retention interval of either approximately 7 min or 24 h, the gorilla responded with one of five cards, each corresponding to a particular food. The gorilla was accurate on 70% of the short retention-interval trials and on 82% of the long retention-interval trials. In Experiment 2, the food stimulus was provided by one of two experimenters, each of whom was represented by a card. The gorilla identified the food (55% of the time) and the experimenter (82% of the time) on the short retention-interval trials. On the long retention-interval trials, the gorilla was accurate for the food (73%) and for the person (87%). The results are interpreted in light of theories of episodic memory.
|
|
|
|
Gomez, J. - C. (2005). Species comparative studies and cognitive development. Trends. Cognit. Sci., 9(3), 118–125.
Abstract: The comparative study of infant development and animal cognition brings to cognitive science the promise of insights into the nature and origins of cognitive skills. In this article, I review a recent wave of comparative studies conducted with similar methodologies and similar theoretical frameworks on how two core components of human cognition--object permanence and gaze following--develop in different species. These comparative findings call for an integration of current competing accounts of developmental change. They further suggest that evolution has produced developmental devices capable at the same time of preserving core adaptive components, and opening themselves up to further adaptive change, not only in interaction with the external environment, but also in interaction with other co-developing cognitive systems.
|
|
|
|
Uher, J., Asendorpf, J. B., & Call, J. (2008). Personality in the behaviour of great apes: temporal stability, cross-situational consistency and coherence in response. Anim. Behav., 75(1), 99–112.
Abstract: Using a multidisciplinary approach, the present study complements ethological behaviour measurements with basic theoretical concepts, methods and approaches of the personality psychological trait paradigm. Its adoptability and usefulness for animal studies are tested exemplarily on a sample of 20 zoo-housed great apes (five of each of the following species): bonobos, Pan paniscus; chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes verus; gorillas, Gorilla gorilla gorilla; and orang-utans, Pongo pygmaeus abelii. Data on 76 single trait-relevant behaviours were recorded in a series of 14 laboratory-based situations and in two different group situations. Data collection was repeated completely after a break of 2 weeks within a 60-day period. All behaviour records were sufficiently reliable. Individual- and variable-oriented analyses showed high/substantial temporal stability on different levels of aggregation. Distinctive and stable individual situational and response profiles clarified the importance of situations and of multiple trait-relevant behaviours. The present study calls for a closer collaboration between behavioural biologists and personality psychologists to tap the full potential of animal personality research.
|
|
|
|
Lonsdorf, E. V., Ross, S. R., Linick, S. A., Milstein, M. S., & Melber, T. N. (2009). An experimental, comparative investigation of tool use in chimpanzees and gorillas. Anim. Behav., 77(5), 1119–1126.
Abstract: Studies of ape tool use have been conducted in captivity since the early 1900s and in the wild since the 1960s. Chimpanzees are the most prolific tool users among the apes, and are known to use more tools than any other nonhuman animal. In contrast, reports of gorilla tool use are rare both in wild and captive settings. Studies of the processes involved in tool use learning have been limited in the wild by the lack of ability to control several unpredictable variables, and in captivity by tool use opportunities that are often presented in non-naturalistic contexts. We attempted to address both of these limitations by providing naïve subjects with a naturalistic tool use device (built to simulate a termite mound) while housed in a more natural social setting to approximate how learning would occur in the wild. Both gorillas and chimpanzees participated in the experiment to allow comparative analyses of acquisition of tool behaviour and the factors that may affect acquisition. Both species showed low frequencies of interaction with the mound in the baseline condition, before baiting with a food reward. Once baited, chimpanzees both attempted and succeeded to extract the reward more quickly than did gorillas. The number of social group members at the mound was significantly higher for chimpanzees than for gorillas and may have affected skill acquisition. We advocate that comparative approaches to skill acquisition and learning are valuable, but that researchers need to be cognizant of species differences in social structure that may affect results.
|
|
|
|
Stoinski, T. S., Wrate, J. L., Ure, N., & Whiten, A. (2001). Imitative learning by captive western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) in a simulated food-processing task. J Comp Psychol, 115(3), 272–281.
Abstract: Although field studies have suggested the existence of cultural transmission of foraging techniques in primates, identification of transmission mechanisms has remained elusive. To test experimentally for evidence of imitation in the current study, we exposed gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) to an artificial fruit foraging task designed by A. Whiten and D. M. Custance (1996). Gorillas (n=6) watched a human model remove a series of 3 defenses around a fruit. Each of the defenses was removed using 1 of 2 alternative techniques. Subsequent video analysis of gorillas' behavior showed a significant tendency to copy the observed technique on 1 of the individual defenses and the direction of removal on another defense. This is the first statistically reliable evidence of imitation in gorillas. Sequence of defense removal was not replicated. The gorillas' responses were most similar to those of chimpanzees.
|
|
|
|
Mulcahy, N. J., & Call, J. (2006). How great apes perform on a modified trap-tube task. Anim. Cogn., 9(3), 193–199.
Abstract: To date, neither primates nor birds have shown clear evidence of causal knowledge when attempting to solve the trap tube task. One factor that may have contributed to mask the knowledge that subjects may have about the task is that subjects were only allowed to push the reward away from them, which is a particularly difficult action for primates in certain problem solving situations. We presented five orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), two chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), two bonobos (Pan paniscus), and one gorilla (Gorilla gorilla) with a modified trap tube that allowed subjects to push or rake the reward with the tool. In two additional follow-up tests, we inverted the tube 180 degrees rendering the trap nonfunctional and also presented subjects with the original task in which they were required to push the reward out of the tube. Results showed that all but one of the subjects preferred to rake the reward. Two orangutans and one chimpanzee (all of whom preferred to rake the reward), consistently avoided the trap only when it was functional but failed the original task. These findings suggest that some great apes may have some causal knowledge about the trap-tube task. Their success, however, depended on whether they were allowed to choose certain tool-using actions.
|
|
