Equine and Animal Cognition Reference Database -- Query Results

	Equine and Animal Cognition Reference Database Home \| Show All \| Simple Search \| Advanced Search	Login Quick Search: Field: contains: ...
	21-30 of 42 records found matching your query:

Search & Display Options

Select All Deselect All

<< 1 2 3 4 5 >>

List View

Citations

Details

	Records
	Author	Call, J.; Agnetta, B.; Tomasello, M.
	Title	Cues that chimpanzees do and do not use to find hidden objects			Type	Journal Article
	Year	2000	Publication	Animal Cognition	Abbreviated Journal	Anim. Cogn.
	Volume	3	Issue	1	Pages	23-34
	Keywords
	Abstract	Chimpanzees follow conspecific and human gaze direction reliably in some situations, but very few chimpanzees reliably use gaze direction or other communicative signals to locate hidden food in the object-choice task. Three studies aimed at exploring factors that affect chimpanzee performance in this task are reported. In the first study, vocalizations and other noises facilitated the performance of some chimpanzees (only a minority). In the second study, various behavioral cues were given in which a human experimenter either touched, approached, or actually lifted and looked under the container where the food was hidden. Each of these cues led to enhanced performance for only a very few individuals. In the third study – a replication with some methodological improvements of a previous experiment – chimpanzees were confronted with two experimenters giving conflicting cues about the location of the hidden food, with one of them (the knower) having witnessed the hiding process and the other (the guesser) not. In the crucial test in which a third experimenter did the hiding, no chimpanzee found the food at above chance levels. Overall, in all three studies, by far the best performers were two individuals who had been raised in infancy by humans. It thus seems that while chimpanzees are very good at “behavior reading” of various sorts, including gaze following, they do not understand the communicative intentions (informative intentions) behind the looking and gesturing of others – with the possible exception of enculturated chimpanzees, who still do not understand the differential significance of looking and gesturing done by people who have different knowledge about states of affairs in the world.
	Address
	Corporate Author				Thesis
	Publisher		Place of Publication		Editor
	Language		Summary Language		Original Title
	Series Editor		Series Title		Abbreviated Series Title
	Series Volume		Series Issue		Edition
	ISSN		ISBN		Medium
	Area		Expedition		Conference
	Notes				Approved	no
	Call Number	Equine Behaviour @ team @			Serial	3176
Permanent link to this record



	Author	Call, J.; Hare, B.A.; Tomasello, M.
	Title	Chimpanzee gaze following in an object-choice task			Type	Journal Article
	Year	1998	Publication	Animal Cognition	Abbreviated Journal	Anim. Cogn.
	Volume	1	Issue	2	Pages	89-99
	Keywords
	Abstract	Many primate species reliably track and follow the visual gaze of conspecifics and humans, even to locations above and behind the subject. However, it is not clear whether primates follow a human's gaze to find hidden food under one of two containers in an object-choice task. In a series of experiments six adult female chimpanzees followed a human's gaze (head and eye direction) to a distal location in space above and behind them, and checked back to the human's face when they did not find anything interesting or unusual. This study also assessed whether these same subjects would also use the human's gaze in an object-choice task with three types of occluders: barriers, tubes, and bowls. Barriers and tubes permitted the experimenter to see their contents (i.e., food) whereas bowls did not. Chimpanzees used the human's gaze direction to choose the tube or barrier containing food but they did not use the human's gaze to decide between bowls. Our findings allowed us to discard both simple orientation and understanding seeing-knowing in others as the explanations for gaze following in chimpanzees. However, they did not allow us to conclusively choose between orientation combined with foraging tendencies and understanding seeing in others. One interesting possibility raised by these results is that studies in which the human cannot see the reward at the time of subject choice may potentially be underestimating chimpanzees' social knowledge.
	Address
	Corporate Author				Thesis
	Publisher		Place of Publication		Editor
	Language		Summary Language		Original Title
	Series Editor		Series Title		Abbreviated Series Title
	Series Volume		Series Issue		Edition
	ISSN		ISBN		Medium
	Area		Expedition		Conference
	Notes				Approved	no
	Call Number	Equine Behaviour @ team @			Serial	3165
Permanent link to this record



	Author	MacLean, E.; Matthews, L.; Hare, B.; Nunn, C.; Anderson, R.; Aureli, F.; Brannon, E.; Call, J.; Drea, C.; Emery, N.; Haun, D.; Herrmann, E.; Jacobs, L.; Platt, M.; Rosati, A.; Sandel, A.; Schroepfer, K.; Seed, A.; Tan, J.; van Schaik, C.; Wobber, V.
	Title	How does cognition evolve? Phylogenetic comparative psychology			Type	Journal Article
	Year	2012	Publication	Animal Cognition	Abbreviated Journal	Anim. Cogn.
	Volume	15	Issue	2	Pages	223-238
	Keywords	Biomedizin & Life Sciences
	Abstract	Now more than ever animal studies have the potential to test hypotheses regarding how cognition evolves. Comparative psychologists have developed new techniques to probe the cognitive mechanisms underlying animal behavior, and they have become increasingly skillful at adapting methodologies to test multiple species. Meanwhile, evolutionary biologists have generated quantitative approaches to investigate the phylogenetic distribution and function of phenotypic traits, including cognition. In particular, phylogenetic methods can quantitatively (1) test whether specific cognitive abilities are correlated with life history (e.g., lifespan), morphology (e.g., brain size), or socio-ecological variables (e.g., social system), (2) measure how strongly phylogenetic relatedness predicts the distribution of cognitive skills across species, and (3) estimate the ancestral state of a given cognitive trait using measures of cognitive performance from extant species. Phylogenetic methods can also be used to guide the selection of species comparisons that offer the strongest tests of a priori predictions of cognitive evolutionary hypotheses (i.e., phylogenetic targeting). Here, we explain how an integration of comparative psychology and evolutionary biology will answer a host of questions regarding the phylogenetic distribution and history of cognitive traits, as well as the evolutionary processes that drove their evolution.
	Address
	Corporate Author				Thesis
	Publisher	Springer Berlin / Heidelberg	Place of Publication		Editor
	Language		Summary Language		Original Title
	Series Editor		Series Title		Abbreviated Series Title
	Series Volume		Series Issue		Edition
	ISSN	1435-9448	ISBN		Medium
	Area		Expedition		Conference
	Notes				Approved	no
	Call Number	Equine Behaviour @ team @			Serial	5604
Permanent link to this record



	Author	Call, J.
	Title	Inferences by exclusion in the great apes: the effect of age and species			Type	Journal Article
	Year	2006	Publication	Animal Cognition	Abbreviated Journal	Anim. Cogn.
	Volume	9	Issue	4	Pages	393-403
	Keywords	Age Factors; Animals; Association Learning; Cognition; Concept Formation; Discrimination Learning; Female; Gorilla gorilla; Hominidae/classification/psychology; Male; Pan paniscus; Pan troglodytes; Pongo pygmaeus; *Problem Solving; Species Specificity
	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.
	Address	Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. call@eva.mpg.de
	Corporate Author				Thesis
	Publisher		Place of Publication		Editor
	Language	English	Summary Language		Original Title
	Series Editor		Series Title		Abbreviated Series Title
	Series Volume		Series Issue		Edition
	ISSN	1435-9448	ISBN		Medium
	Area		Expedition		Conference
	Notes	PMID:16924458			Approved	no
	Call Number	Equine Behaviour @ team @			Serial	2444
Permanent link to this record



	Author	Scheumann, M.; Call, J.
	Title	*The use of experimenter-given cues by South African fur seals (Arctocephalus pusillus)*			Type	Journal Article
	Year	2004	Publication	Animal Cognition	Abbreviated Journal	Anim. Cogn.
	Volume	7	Issue	4	Pages	224-230
	Keywords	Animal Communication; Animals; Association Learning; Cues; Female; Fur Seals/psychology; Gestures; Humans; *Imitative Behavior; Nonverbal Communication; Social Behavior; Species Specificity
	Abstract	Dogs can use a variety of experimenter-given cues such as pointing, head direction, and eye direction to locate food hidden under one of several containers. Some authors have proposed that this is a result of the domestication process. In this study we tested four captive fur seals in a two alternative object choice task in which subjects had to use one of the following experimenter-given cues to locate the food: (1) the experimenter pointed and gazed at one of the objects, (2) the experimenter pointed at only one of the objects, (3) the experimenter gazed at only one of the objects, (4) the experimenter glanced at only one of the objects, (5) the experimenter pointed and gazed at one of the objects but was sitting closer to one object than to the other, (6) the experimenter pointed only with the index finger at one of the objects, (7) the experimenter presented a replica of one of the objects. The fur seals were able to use cues which involved a fully exposed arm or a head direction, but failed to use glance only, the index finger pointing and the object replica cues. The results showed that a domestication process was not necessary to develop receptive skills to cues given by an experimenter. Instead, we hypothesize that close interactions with humans prior to testing enabled fur seals to uses ome gestural cues without formal training. We also analyzed the behavior of the seals depending on the level of difficulty of the task. Behavioral signs of hesitation increased with task difficulty. This suggests that the fur seals were sensitive to task difficulty.
	Address	Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, 04103 Leipzig, Germany. Marina.Scheumann@tiho-hannover.de
	Corporate Author				Thesis
	Publisher		Place of Publication		Editor
	Language	English	Summary Language		Original Title
	Series Editor		Series Title		Abbreviated Series Title
	Series Volume		Series Issue		Edition
	ISSN	1435-9448	ISBN		Medium
	Area		Expedition		Conference
	Notes	PMID:15057598			Approved	no
	Call Number	Equine Behaviour @ team @			Serial	2536
Permanent link to this record



	Author	Call, J.
	Title	A fish-eye lens for comparative studies: broadening the scope of animal cognition			Type	Journal Article
	Year	2002	Publication	Animal Cognition	Abbreviated Journal	Anim. Cogn.
	Volume	5	Issue	1	Pages	15-16
	Keywords	Animals; Behavior, Animal/physiology; Cognition/physiology; Fishes/physiology; Species Specificity
	Abstract	? is the article no longer available?
	Address	call@eva.mpg.de
	Corporate Author				Thesis
	Publisher		Place of Publication		Editor
	Language	English	Summary Language		Original Title
	Series Editor		Series Title		Abbreviated Series Title
	Series Volume		Series Issue		Edition
	ISSN	1435-9448	ISBN		Medium
	Area		Expedition		Conference
	Notes	PMID:11957396			Approved	no
	Call Number	Equine Behaviour @ team @			Serial	2616
Permanent link to this record



	Author	Hare, B.; Call, J.; Tomasello, M.
	Title	Do chimpanzees know what conspecifics know?			Type	Journal Article
	Year	2001	Publication	Animal Behaviour.	Abbreviated Journal	Anim. Behav.
	Volume	61	Issue	1	Pages	139-151
	Keywords
	Abstract	We conducted three experiments on social problem solving by chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes. In each experiment a subordinate and a dominant individual competed for food, which was placed in various ways on the subordinate's side of two opaque barriers. In some conditions dominants had not seen the food hidden, or food they had seen hidden was moved elsewhere when they were not watching (whereas in control conditions they saw the food being hidden or moved). At the same time, subordinates always saw the entire baiting procedure and could monitor the visual access of their dominant competitor as well. If subordinates were sensitive to what dominants did or did not see during baiting, they should have preferentially approached and retrieved the food that dominants had not seen hidden or moved. This is what they did in experiment 1 when dominants were either uninformed or misinformed about the food's location. In experiment 2 subordinates recognized, and adjusted their behaviour accordingly, when the dominant individual who witnessed the hiding was replaced with another dominant individual who had not witnessed it, thus demonstrating their ability to keep track of precisely who has witnessed what. In experiment 3 subordinates did not choose consistently between two pieces of hidden food, one of which dominants had seen hidden and one of which they had not seen hidden. However, their failure in this experiment was likely to be due to the changed nature of the competition under these circumstances and not to a failure of social-cognitive skills. These findings suggest that at least in some situations (i.e. competition with conspecifics) chimpanzees know what conspecifics have and have not seen (do and do not know), and that they use this information to devise effective social-cognitive strategies. Copyright 2001 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.
	Address	Department of Psychology and Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center, Emory University
	Corporate Author				Thesis
	Publisher		Place of Publication		Editor
	Language	English	Summary Language		Original Title
	Series Editor		Series Title		Abbreviated Series Title
	Series Volume		Series Issue		Edition
	ISSN	0003-3472	ISBN		Medium
	Area		Expedition		Conference
	Notes	PMID:11170704			Approved	no
	Call Number	refbase @ user @			Serial	588
Permanent link to this record



	Author	Call, J.; Aureli,F.; de Waal, F.B. M.
	Title	Reconciliation patterns among stumptailed macaques: a multivariate approach			Type	Journal Article
	Year	1999	Publication	Animal Behaviour.	Abbreviated Journal	Anim. Behav.
	Volume	58	Issue	1	Pages	165-172
	Keywords
	Abstract	This study focused on two aspects of the dynamics of reconciliation in stumptailed macaques, Macaca arctoides. First, we investigated the combined effects of multiple variables (i.e. sex, age, rank, conflict intensity, outcome, or number of participants, interopponent distance, kinship and friendship) on the occurrence of reconciliation. Second, we investigated whether opponents used different behaviour patterns in their postconflict reunions depending on the characteristics of their conflicts or their relationship with their opponents. We studied a multimale, multifemale group of 38 stumptailed macaques housed in a large outdoor compound. Three types of data were collected: (1) instantaneous scan sampling of contact sitting to infer 'friendship'; (2) ad libitum data on bared-teeth and teeth-chattering displays to infer dominance rank; (3) 10-min focal observations during postconflict (PC) and matched control (MC) periods in which we recorded interopponent distance at the beginning of the observation and all aggressive and affiliative behaviours between former opponents. Our study confirmed the high conciliatory tendency of stumptailed macaques previously reported for other groups. A stepwise logistic regression revealed that initial interopponent distance in PC, friendship and kinship were the only factors that independently contributed to explain the occurrence of reconciliation. Two main clusters of postconflict behavioural patterns emerged: allogrooming+contact sitting and sociosexual behaviours (e.g. hold-bottom). It is hypothesized that postconflict allogrooming and contact sitting may be used for the maintenance of valuable relationships, whereas sociosexual behaviours may be used more indiscriminately by any pair of opponents as a buffering mechanism to prevent immediate recurrence of aggression. Copyright 1999 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.
	Address	School of Biological Sciences, University of Liverpool
	Corporate Author				Thesis
	Publisher		Place of Publication		Editor
	Language	English	Summary Language		Original Title
	Series Editor		Series Title		Abbreviated Series Title
	Series Volume		Series Issue		Edition
	ISSN	0003-3472	ISBN		Medium
	Area		Expedition		Conference
	Notes	PMID:10413553			Approved	no
	Call Number	refbase @ user @			Serial	194
Permanent link to this record



	Author	Tomasello, M.; Call, J.
	Title	Do chimpanzees know what others see ? or only what they are looking at?			Type	Book Chapter
	Year	2006	Publication	Rational Animals?	Abbreviated Journal
	Volume		Issue		Pages	371-384
	Keywords
	Abstract
	Address
	Corporate Author				Thesis
	Publisher	Oxford University Press	Place of Publication	Oxford	Editor	Nudds, M.; Hurley, S.
	Language		Summary Language		Original Title
	Series Editor		Series Title		Abbreviated Series Title
	Series Volume		Series Issue		Edition
	ISSN		ISBN		Medium
	Area		Expedition		Conference
	Notes				Approved	no
	Call Number	Equine Behaviour @ team @			Serial	4094
Permanent link to this record



	Author	Bräuer, J.; Call, J.; Tomasello, M.
	Title	Chimpanzees do not take into account what others can hear in a competitive situation			Type	Journal Article
	Year	2008	Publication	Animal Cognition	Abbreviated Journal	Anim. Cogn.
	Volume	11	Issue	1	Pages	1435-9448
	Keywords	Social cognition – Food competition – Perspective taking
	Abstract	Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) know what others can and cannot see in a competitive situation. Does this reflect a general understanding the perceptions of others` In a study by Hare et al. (2000) pairs of chimpanzees competed over two pieces of food. Subordinate individuals preferred to approach food that was behind a barrier that the dominant could not see, suggesting that chimpanzees can take the visual perspective of others. We extended this paradigm to the auditory modality to investigate whether chimpanzees are sensitive to whether a competitor can hear food rewards being hidden. Results suggested that the chimpanzees did not take what the competitor had heard into account, despite being able to locate the hiding place themselves by the noise.
	Address
	Corporate Author				Thesis
	Publisher		Place of Publication		Editor
	Language		Summary Language		Original Title
	Series Editor		Series Title		Abbreviated Series Title
	Series Volume		Series Issue		Edition
	ISSN		ISBN		Medium
	Area		Expedition		Conference
	Notes				Approved	no
	Call Number	Admin @ knut @			Serial	4218
Permanent link to this record

Select All Deselect All

<< 1 2 3 4 5 >>

Details

CQL Search | Library Search | Show Record | Extract Citations

Help