Planning is an important component of cognition that contributes, for example, to efficient movement through space. In the current study we presented novel two-dimensional alley mazes to four chimpanzees and three capuchin monkeys to identify the nature and efficiency of planning in relation to varying task parameters. All the subjects solved more mazes without error than expected by chance, providing compelling evidence that both species planned their choices in some manner. The probability of making a correct choice on mazes designed to be more demanding and presented later in the testing series was higher than on earlier, simpler mazes (chimpanzees), or unchanged (capuchin monkeys), suggesting microdevelopment of strategic choice. Structural properties of the mazes affected both species' choices. Capuchin monkeys were less likely than chimpanzees to take a correct path that initially led away from the goal but that eventually led to the goal. Chimpanzees were more likely to make an error by passing a correct path than by turning onto a wrong path. Chimpanzees and one capuchin made more errors on choices farther in sequence from the goal. Each species corrected errors before running into the end of an alley in approximately 40% of cases. Together, these findings suggest nascent planning abilities in each species, and the prospect for significant development of strategic planning capabilities on tasks presenting multiple simultaneous or sequential spatial relations. The computerized maze paradigm appears well suited to investigate movement planning and spatial perception in human and nonhuman primates alike.

The authors investigated strategies used to combine seriated cups by apes (Pan troglodytes and P. paniscus) and monkeys (Cebus apella) using a protocol reported in P. M. Greenfield, K. Nelson, and E. Saltzman's (1972) study with children. It was hypothesized that apes would exhibit more hierarchical combinations of cups than monkeys, given apes' language capacity, and that apes would seriate the cups more efficiently than monkeys. As predicted, apes made many structures with the cups using a variety of strategies, and monkeys rarely combined the cups. After a training phase to orient monkeys to the task, the 2 genera did not differ in the strategies used to combine the cups or in efficiency in seriating the cups. Success in this task suggests that sensorimotor versions of hierarchically organized combinatorial activity are well within apes' and monkeys' abilities.

No abstract