Chimpanzee (Pan Troglodytes) Counting in a Computerized Testing Paradigm

Beran, Michael J.; Rumbaugh, Duane M.; Savage‐Rumbaugh, E. Sue

doi:10.1007/bf03395255

Cited by 44 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The evidence available so far suggests that apes, dolphins, and birds can learn to use arbitrary signs for cardinalities [52][53][54][55], and apes have also been taught to arrange such symbols sequentially [55][56][57][58]. Can these animals also learn to systematically draw on relations within the number sequence, that is, to use the sequence as a tool that can be employed to indicate different kinds of empirical relations (cardinal, ordinal, and even nominal)?…”

Section: Box 2: Questions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Iconic and non-iconic stages in number development: the role of language

Wiese¹

2003

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is language the key to number? This article argues that the human language faculty provides the cognitive equipment that enables humans to develop a systematic number concept.Crucially, this concept is based on non-iconic representations that involve relations be tween relations: relations between numbers are linked with relations between objects. In contrast to this, language-independent numerosity concepts provide only iconic representations. The pattern of forming relations between relations lies at the heart of our language faculty, suggesting that it is language that enables h umans to make the step from these iconic representations, which we share with other species, to a generalised concept of number.

show abstract

Section: Box 2: Questions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Iconic and non-iconic stages in number development: the role of language

Wiese¹

2003

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is evidence that both monkeys and apes can discriminate classes on the basis of abstract perceptual relations like proportions, volume (Thomas & Ingram, 1979), geometric form (Burdyn & Thomas, 1984), and numerousity (e.g., Beran, Rumbaugh & Savage-Rumbaugh, 1998;Boysen & Bernston, 1989;Brannon & Terrace, 1998). For a full account of this literature see Boysen (this issue).…”

Section: Abstract Perceptual Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Categorical Perception and Conceptual Judgments by Nonhuman Primates: The Paleological Monkey and the Analogical Ape

Thompson

Oden²

2000

Cognitive Science

211

166

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies of the conceptual abilities of nonhuman primates demonstrate the substantial range of these abilities as well as their limitations. Such abilities range from categorization on the basis of shared physical attributes, associative relations and functions to abstract concepts as reflected in analogical reasoning about relations between relations. The pattern of results from these studies point to a fundamental distinction between monkeys and apes in both their implicit and explicit conceptual capacities. Monkeys, but not apes, might be best regarded as "paleo-logicans" in the sense that they form common class concepts of identity on the basis of identical predicates (i.e., shared features). The discrimination of presumably more abstract relations commonly involves relatively simple procedural strategies mediated by associative processes likely shared by all mammals. There is no evidence that monkeys can perceive, let alone judge, relations-between-relations. This analogical conceptual capacity is found only in chimpanzees and humans. Interestingly, the "analogical ape," like the child, can make its analogical knowledge explicit only if it is first provided with a symbol system by which propositional representations can be encoded and manipulated

show abstract

“…Chimpanzees are good candidates for this research both because of their genetic relatedness to humans and because of their ability to represent the world symbolically. Examinations of language (Savage-Rumbaugh, 1986;Savage-Rumbaugh & Brakke, 1996;Savage-Rumbaugh, Sevcik, Brakke, Rumbaugh, & Greenfield, 1990), numerical competence (Beran, Rumbaugh, & Savage-Rumbaugh, 1998;Boy-sen & Capaldi, 1993;Rumbaugh, Hopkins, Washburn, & Savage-Rumbaugh, 1989), culture (McGrew, 1992), hunting (Boesch & Boesch, 1989), politics (deWaal, 1982), tool use (McGrew, 1993, mirror selfrecognition (Povinelli, Rulf, Landau, & Bierschwale, 1993), theory of mind (Premack & Woodruff, 1978), and other cognitive domains have provided evidence that the Great Apes, and in particular members of the genus Pan, are capable of exhibiting many behaviors that are similar to those exhibited by humans.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%