Combinatoriality and Compositionality in Everyday Primate Skills

Gontier, Nathalie

doi:10.1007/s10764-024-00415-9

Cited by 2 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 133 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Through analysing the curvature of composite models, we identified that these subroutines of actions were between 2-8 elements long (mean = 4.6 sequence elements, N = 5). Our results are therefore consistent with previous descriptions of how great apes organize sequences of actions during food processing behaviours, including those which involve the use of tools (Byrne et al, 2013; Byrne and Russon, 1998; Gontier, 2024). Apes are theorized to decompose goals into subgoals which are addressed through short, stereotyped subroutines of actions (Byrne et al, 2013; Byrne and Russon, 1998), thus, these models of behavioural organization are identical to the composite structuring model in our analysis.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…These analyses should include sequential manual behaviours which vary in their technical complexity, and should include both complex, multi-stage manual behaviours (e.g. nest building and complex foraging tasks which do not require tools), as well as simpler feeding tasks which require fewer processing steps (Gontier, 2024).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Understanding the dynamics of this evolutionary transition would be greatly aided through further comparative research into the sequential organization of actions used by chimpanzees and humans during a greater variety of tool-use tasks, as well as everyday behaviours which require careful sequencing of manual actions (Gontier, 2024).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The sequential manual actions of non-human apes – including those used in tool use – have previously been described using qualitative frameworks which either explicitly or implicitly encompass hierarchical organization (Boesch et al, 2020; Byrne et al, 2013; Byrne and Russon, 1998; Carvalho et al, 2008; Estienne et al, 2017; Gontier, 2024); however, it has thus far been empirically challenging to exclude the possibility that these action sequences are produced by simpler structuring mechanisms (Vereijken and Whiting, 1998), particularly as human observers carry cognitive biases for identifying hierarchical structures in non-hierarchical sequences (Ferrigno et al, 2020; Fitch, 2014). Through characterizing MI decay across observed action sequences, we identified that for the majority of chimpanzees, MI decay included a period of power-law decay, indicative of hierarchical organization.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, the hierarchical organization of tool-use behaviours may have been an adaptation which was present in the evolutionary ancestor of humans and apes – stemming from more basal hierarchical systems of action – which was then elaborated across the course of human evolution into a state of higher complexity. Understanding the dynamics of this evolutionary transition would be greatly aided through further comparative research into the sequential organization of actions used by chimpanzees and humans during a greater variety of tool-use tasks, as well as everyday behaviours which require careful sequencing of manual actions (Gontier, 2024).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Nonadjacent Dependencies and Syntactic Structure of Chimpanzee Action During a Natural Tool-Use Task

Howard-Spink,

Hayashi,

Matsuzawa

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The hierarchical organization of sequential behaviour, and the ability to compensate for nonadjacent sequential dependencies, are fundamental and interrelated abilities supporting complex human behaviours, including language and tool use. To understand how the cognition underlying these structural properties of human behaviour evolved, we can gain valuable insight from studying the sequential behaviours of nonhuman animals. Among the behaviours of nonhuman apes, tool use has been hypothesised to be a domain of behaviour which likely involves hierarchical organization. However thus far, evidence supporting this hypothesis comes from methodologies which have been criticised in their objectivity. Additionally, the extent to which nonadjacent dependencies appear in primate action sequences during tool use has not been formally investigated. We used estimations of mutual information (MI, a measure of dependency strength between sequence elements) to evaluate both the extent to which wild chimpanzees produce nonadjacent dependencies during a naturalistic tool use task (nut cracking), as well as how sequences of actions are organized during tool use. Half of adult chimpanzees produce nonadjacent dependencies at significantly greater sequential distances than comparable, nonhierarchical Markov models, including when repeated actions had been accounted for. Additionally, for the majority of chimpanzees, MI decay with increasing sequential distance included a power law relationship, which is a key indicator that most chimpanzees draw upon forms of hierarchical structuring when organizing behaviours during tool use. Our analysis offered the greatest support for a system of organization which involved the production of short subroutines of actions (2 to 8 actions), which are hierarchically arranged into sequences, and is consistent with previous qualitative descriptions of ape tool-use behaviours. Interindividual variability was detected within our analysis in both the distance dependencies were detected, and the most likely structuring mechanism for sequential action organization. We discuss these results in light of possible interindividual variation, in addition to methodological considerations for applications of MI estimations to sequential behaviours. Moreover, we discuss our main findings alongside hypotheses for the coevolution of complex syntax in language and tool action across hominin evolutionary history.

show abstract