Inferring the evolutionary history of cognitive abilities requires large and diverse samples. However, such samples are often beyond the reach of individual researchers or institutions, and studies are often limited to small numbers of species. Consequently, methodological and site-specific-differences across studies can limit comparisons between species. Here we introduce the ManyPrimates project, which addresses these challenges by providing a large-scale collaborative framework for comparative studies in primate cognition. To demonstrate the viability of the project we conducted a case study of short-term memory. In this initial study, we were able to include 176 individuals from 12 primate species housed at 11 sites across Africa, Asia, North America and Europe. All subjects were tested in a delayed-response task using consistent methodology across sites. Individuals could access food rewards by remembering the position of the hidden reward after a 0, 15, or 30-second delay. Overall, individuals performed better with shorter delays, as predicted by previous studies. Phylogenetic analysis revealed a strong phylogenetic signal for short-term memory. Although, with only 12 species, the validity of this analysis is limited, our initial results demonstrate the feasibility of a large, collaborative open-science project. We present the ManyPrimates project as an exciting opportunity to address open questions in primate cognition and behaviour with large, diverse datasets.

No abstract

In the past few decades, there has been an increase in the number of zoo‐based touchscreen studies of animal cognition around the world. Such studies have contributed to the field of comparative cognition despite the fact research has only been performed at a relatively small number of institutions and with a narrow range of species. Nonetheless, zoo‐based touchscreen studies are increasingly recognized as both having the potential to be enriching for captive animals by providing them with opportunities for choice, as well as potentially being a tool with which to measure changes in welfare. Zoo‐based touchscreen research on public display also has the potential to impact zoo visitors; encouraging them not only learn more about the cognitive abilities of animals, but also potentially promoting increased respect for these species. Given the lack of a comprehensive review of this scope of specialized research, and the broad potential impacts on animals and programs, here we discuss the history, implementation, and potential outcomes of touchscreen research in zoo settings.

Typically, animals' food preferences are tested manually, which can be both time-consuming and vulnerable to experimenter biases. Given the utility of ascertaining animals' food preferences for research and husbandry protocols, developing a quick, reliable, and flexible paradigm would be valuable for expediting many research protocols. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy of using a touchscreen interface to test nonhuman primates' food preferences and valuations, adapting previously validated manual methods. We tested a nonhuman primate subject with four foods (carrot, cucumber, grape, and turnip). Preference testing followed a pairwise forced choice protocol with pairs of food images presented on a touchscreen: The subject was rewarded with whichever food was selected. All six possible pairwise combinations were presented, with 90 trials per pairing. Second, we measured how hard the subject was willing to work to obtain each of the four foods, allowing us to generate demand curves. For this phase, a single image of a food item was presented on the touchscreen that the subject had to select in order to receive the food, and the number of selections required increased following a quarter-log scale, with ten trials per cost level (1, 2, 3, 6, 10, and 18). These methods allowed us to ascertain the subject's relative preferences and valuations of the four foods. The success of this touchscreen protocol for testing the subject's food preferences, from both a practical and a theoretical standpoint, suggests that the protocol should be further validated with other foods with this subject, with other subjects, and with other test items.

No abstract

The Stroop effect describes interference in cognitive processing due to competing cognitive demands. Presenting emotionally laden stimuli creates similar Stroop-like effects that result from participants’ attention being drawn to distractor stimuli. Here, we adapted the methods of a pictorial Stroop study for use with chimpanzees (N = 6), gorillas (N = 7), and Japanese macaques (N = 6). We tested all subjects via touchscreens following the same protocol. Ten of the 19 subjects passed pre-test training. Subjects who reached criterion were then tested on a standard color-interference Stroop test, which revealed differential accuracy in the primates’ responses across conditions. Next, to test for an emotional Stroop effect, we presented subjects with photographs that were either positively valenced (a preferred food) or negatively valenced (snakes). In the emotional Stroop task, as predicted, the primates were less accurate in trials which presented emotionally laden stimuli as compared to control trials, but there were differences in the apes’ and monkeys’ response patterns. Furthermore, for both Stroop tests, while we found that subjects’ accuracy rates were reduced by test stimuli, in contrast to previous research, we found no difference across trial types in the subjects’ response latencies across conditions.

No abstract

Primates’ food preferences are typically assessed under conditions of certainty. To increase ecological validity, and to explore primates’ decision making from a comparative perspective, we tested three primate species (Pan troglodytes, Gorilla gorilla gorilla, Macaca fuscata) (N = 18) in two food-preference tests that created different conditions of uncertainty. In the first, we showed subjects pairs of photographs of six foods in a randomized manner within each session, so subjects could not predict the next pairing and had to respond in accordance with their preferences. We found individual differences in subjects’ preference and differences in six subjects’ preferences when comparing their selections in this test to selections made when trials were blocked by food pairing (tested previously: Huskisson et al., 2020). In in each trial of the second test we paired the food stimuli with a ‘chance’ symbol, representing a random reward of one of the six foods. Across species, each subject’s propensity to select chance over the known food varied by food type: when the known option was highly preferred, subjects were less likely to select the chance symbol. Additionally, 61.11% of the subjects’ rates of selecting foods in the first test showed a positive trend with the rates of selecting the same foods under conditions of uncertainty here; three of these subjects’ selection rates were significantly correlated between tests. Finally, if the food chimpanzees received for selecting the chance symbol was a preferred food, they were more likely to select chance again in the subsequent trial.