Abstract: Pigeons were trained to peck a certain number of times on a key that displayed one of several possible numerical symbols. The particular symbol displayed indicated the number of times that the key had to be pecked. The pigeons signalled the completion of the requirement by operating a separate key. They received a food reward for correct response sequences and time-out penalties for incorrect response sequences. In the first experiment nine pigeons learned to allocate 1, 2, 3 or 4 pecks to the corresponding numerosity symbols s1, s2, s3 and s4 with levels of accuracy well above chance. The second experiment explored the maximum set of numerosities that the pigeons were capable of handling concurrently. Six of the pigeons coped with an s1-s5 task and four pigeons even managed an s1-s6 task with performances that were significantly above chance. Analysis of response times suggested that the pigeons were mainly relying on a number-based rather than on a time-based strategy.

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.

Abstract: The processing of Kanizsa-square illusory figures was studied in two experiments with four humans and two chimpanzees. Subjects of the two species were initially trained to select a Kanizsa-square illusory figure presented in a computerized two-alternative forced choice task. After training, adding narrow closing segments to the pacman inducers that composed the Kanisza illusory figures lowered performance in both chimpanzees and humans, suggesting that the discrimination could be controlled by the perception of illusory forms. A second experiment assessed transfer of performance with five sets of figures in which the size of the inducers and their separation were manipulated. Only for chimpanzees was performance directly controlled by separation, suggesting that chimpanzees are more sensitive than humans to the separation between visual elements.

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.

Abstract: Current research on face processing in primates has focused on a few species, mostly macaques and chimpanzees; to date, only one New World monkey, the squirrel monkey, has been tested. We explored face processing, and the inversion effect in particular, in a New World primate species, the cotton-top tamarin (Saguinus oedipus). In phase 1 of our study, we trained subjects to discriminate between two faces and two scrambled faces; we then presented the tamarins with a series of novel probes in order to determine the features underlying classification. Results showed that the tamarins relied on the external contour of the face for discrimination more than the internal features and their configuration. Statistical analyses revealed no differences in accuracy or response times to upright versus inverted stimuli, and thus no inversion effect. In phase 2, we provided subjects with additional training on the face versus scrambled face discrimination task in order to focus their attention on the configuration of the internal features. Accuracy data revealed individual differences in how tamarins classified these stimuli, even though each subject was trained in the same way. In phase 3, we tested for generalization to a new set of face stimuli, as well as for the capacity to show an inversion effect. For one subject who attended to the configuration of internal features, we found significant evidence of generalization, but no evidence for an inversion effect.