|
|
Hunt, G. R., Rutledge, R. B., & Gray, R. D. (2006). The right tool for the job: what strategies do wild New Caledonian crows use? Anim. Cogn., 9(4), 307–316.
Abstract: New Caledonian crows Corvus moneduloides (NC crows) display sophisticated tool manufacture in the wild, but the cognitive strategy underlying these skills is poorly understood. Here, we investigate what strategy two free-living NC crows used in response to a tool-length task. The crows manufactured tools to extract food from vertical holes of different depths. The first tools they made in visits were of a similar length regardless of the hole depth. The typical length was usually too short to extract food from the deep holes, which ruled out a strategy of immediate causal inference on the first attempt in a trial. When the first tool failed, the crows made second tools significantly longer than the unsuccessful first tools. There was no evidence that the crows made the lengths of first tools to directly match hole depth. We argue that NC crows may generally use a two-stage heuristic strategy to solve tool problems and that performance on the first attempt in a trial is not necessarily the 'gold standard' for assessing folk physics.
|
|
|
|
Visalberghi E, & Trinca L. (1989). Tool use in capuchin monkeys: distinguishing between performing and understanding. Primates, 30, 511.
Abstract: A horizontal plexiglas tube containing a food-reward was presented to four naive tufted capuchins and suitable sticks were provided to push the reward out. Three monkeys out of four spontaneously used the tools and showed very different styles of solving the task. In more complex conditions, in which the sticks needed to be combined or actively modified in order to become effective, the monkeys were always successful; however, their performance was loaded with errors which did not disappear throughout the trials. Evidence of a difference between success in solving the problem and its understanding was found. This suggests that although capuchins can discover new means through active experimentation, they do not mentally represent the characteristics necessary for a tool to be effective, nor do they modify the tool appropriately beforehand. At this level, a major difference with chimpanzees emerges.
|
|
|
|
Krueger, K., Trager, L., Farmer, K., & Byrne, R. (2022). Tool Use in Horses. Animals, 12(15), 1876.
Abstract: Tool use has not yet been confirmed in horses, mules or donkeys. As this subject is difficult to research with conventional methods, we used a crowdsourcing approach to gather data. We contacted equid owners and carers and asked them to report and video examples of �unusual� behaviour via a dedicated website. We also searched YouTube and Facebook for videos of equids showing tool use. From 635 reports, including 1014 behaviours, we found 20 cases of tool use, 13 of which were unambiguous in that it was clear that the behaviour was not trained, caused by reduced welfare, incidental or accidental. We then assessed (a) the effect of management conditions on tool use and (b) whether the animals used tools alone, or socially, involving other equids or humans. We found that management restrictions were associated with corresponding tool use in 12 of the 13 cases (p = 0.01), e.g., equids using sticks to scrape hay within reach when feed was restricted. Furthermore, 8 of the 13 cases involved other equids or humans, such as horses using brushes to groom others. The most frequent tool use was for foraging, with seven examples, tool use for social purposes was seen in four cases, and there was just one case of tool use for escape. There was just one case of tool use for comfort, and in this instance, there were no management restrictions. Equids therefore can develop tool use, especially when management conditions are restricted, but it is a rare occurrence.
|
|
