Abstract: To identify behaviors related to acquisition of tool-use in tufted capuchins (Cebus apella), we presented two tool-using tasks to two groups, extending findings by Westergaard and Fragaszy (1987) and Visalberghi (in press). Five Ss learned to use the tools in each task. The primary predictor of success was level of interest in the task. Observation of others at the apparatus did not facilitate exploratory behaviors or contact with the tools in the observers. Most animals performed exploratory behaviors more often when they were at the apparatus alone than when with another, whether or not the other was using a tool. Observers were quick to learn the relationship between another's activities and the appearance of food. We conclude that capuchins do not readily learn about instrumental relations by observation of others or imitate other's acts. Imitation probably plays no role in the spread of novel instrumental behaviors among monkeys. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)

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.

Abstract: Discriminative learning abilities were studied in 12 mature, malnourished horses. All horses initially received a condition score (CS) between 2 and 4 on a scale of 1 (poor) to 9 (extremely fat). Then horses were assigned to one of 3 treatments based on their eventual, rehabilitated CS during discrimination testing: thin, CS 1-3; moderate, CS 4-6; and fat, CS 7-9. The discrimination learning task was performed for 14 days with a maximum of 20 trials per day. Daily criterion was set at eight consecutively correct trails. Total trials to first criteria and total errors during testing were recorded. Analysis of variance showed that treatments did not differ (P>0.05) in total trials to first criterion, however horses on the fat treatment did have higher total error scores (P<0.05) than horses on the thin or moderate treatments. This difference was probably owing to lack of motivation in the fat treatment horses, rather than to true learning ability differences. The sex of the horse did not significantly affect either learning score.