Abstract: When novel and familiar faces are viewed simultaneously, humans and monkeys show a preference for looking at the novel face. The facial features attended to in familiar and novel faces, were determined by analyzing the visual exploration patterns, or scanpaths, of four monkeys performing a visual paired comparison task. In this task, the viewer was first familiarized with an image and then it was presented simultaneously with a novel and the familiar image. A looking preference for the novel image indicated that the viewer recognized the familiar image and hence differentiates between the familiar and the novel images. Scanpaths and relative looking preference were compared for four types of images: (1) familiar and novel objects, (2) familiar and novel monkey faces with neutral expressions, (3) familiar and novel inverted monkey faces, and (4) faces from the same monkey with different facial expressions. Looking time was significantly longer for the novel face, whether it was neutral, expressing an emotion, or inverted. Monkeys did not show a preference, or an aversion, for looking at aggressive or affiliative facial expressions. The analysis of scanpaths indicated that the eyes were the most explored facial feature in all faces. When faces expressed emotions such as a fear grimace, then monkeys scanned features of the face, which contributed to the uniqueness of the expression. Inverted facial images were scanned similarly to upright images. Precise measurement of eye movements during the visual paired comparison task, allowed a novel and more quantitative assessment of the perceptual processes involved the spontaneous visual exploration of faces and facial expressions. These studies indicate that non-human primates carry out the visual analysis of complex images such as faces in a characteristic and quantifiable manner.

Abstract: The experiments investigated how two adult captive chimpanzees learned to navigate in an automated interception task. They had to capture a visual target that moved predictably on a touch monitor. The aim of the study was to determine the learning stages that led to an efficient strategy of intercepting the target. The chimpanzees had prior training in moving a finger on a touch monitor and were exposed to the interception task without any explicit training. With a finger the subject could move a small “ball” at any speed on the screen toward a visual target that moved at a fixed speed either back and forth in a linear path or around the edge of the screen in a rectangular pattern. Initial ball and target locations varied from trial to trial. The subjects received a small fruit reinforcement when they hit the target with the ball. The speed of target movement was increased across training stages up to 38 cm/s. Learning progressed from merely chasing the target to intercepting the target by moving the ball to a point on the screen that coincided with arrival of the target at that point. Performance improvement consisted of reduction in redundancy of the movement path and reduction in the time to target interception. Analysis of the finger's movement path showed that the subjects anticipated the target's movement even before it began to move. Thus, the subjects learned to use the target's initial resting location at trial onset as a predictive signal for where the target would later be when it began moving. During probe trials, where the target unpredictably remained stationary throughout the trial, the subjects first moved the ball in anticipation of expected target movement and then corrected the movement to steer the ball to the resting target. Anticipatory ball movement in probe trials with novel ball and target locations (tested for one subject) showed generalized interception beyond the trained ball and target locations. The experiments illustrate in a laboratory setting the development of a highly complex and adaptive motor performance that resembles navigational skills seen in natural settings where predators intercept the path of moving prey.

Abstract: We investigated whether macaque monkeys possess the ability to prepare abstract tasks in advance. We trained two monkeys to use different stimulus-response (S-R) mappings. On each trial, monkeys were first informed with a visual cue which of two S-R mapping to use. Following a delay, a visual target was presented to which they would respond with a left or right button-press. We manipulated delay time between cue and target and found that performance was faster and more accurate with longer delays, suggesting that monkeys used the delay time to prepare each task in advance.

Abstract: The work of behavioural pharmacologists has concentrated on small animals, such as rodents and pigeons. The validity of extrapolation of their findings to humans depends upon the existence of parallels in both physiology and psychology between these animals and humans. This paper considers the question whether there are in fact substantial cognitive parallels between, first, different non-human groups of vertebrates and, second, non-humans and humans. Behavioural data from 'simple' tasks, such as habituation and conditioning, do not point to species differences among vertebrates. Using examples that concentrate on the performance of rodents and birds, it is argued that, similarly, data from more complex tasks (learning-set formation, transitive inference, and spatial memory serve as examples) reveal few if any cognitive differences amongst non-human vertebrates. This conclusion supports the notion that association formation may be the critical problem-solving process available to non-human animals; associative mechanisms are assumed to have evolved to detect causal links between events, and would therefore be relevant in all ecological niches. In agreement with this view, recent advances in comparative neurology show striking parallels in functional organisation of mammalian and avian telencephalon. Finally, it is argued that although the peculiarly human capacity for language marks a large cognitive contrast between humans and non-humans, there is good evidence-in particular, from work on implicit learning--that the learning mechanisms available to non--humans are present and do play an important role in human cognition.