Decision-making flexibility in New Caledonian crows, young children and adult humans in a multi-dimensional tool-use task

Abstract

The ability to make profitable decisions in natural foraging contexts may be influenced by an additional requirement of tool-use, due to increased levels of relational complexity and additional work-effort imposed by tool-use, compared with simply choosing between an immediate and delayed food item. We examined the flexibility for making the most profitable decisions in a multi-dimensional tool-use task, involving different apparatuses, tools and rewards of varying quality, in 3-5-year-old children, adult humans and tool-making New Caledonian crows (Corvus moneduloides). We also compared our results to previous studies on habitually tool-making orangutans (Pongo abelii) and non-tool-making Goffin's cockatoos (Cacatua goffiniana). Adult humans, cockatoos and crows, but not children and orangutans, did not select a tool when it was not necessary, which was the more profitable choice in this situation. Adult humans, orangutans and cockatoos, but not crows and children, were able to refrain from selecting non-functional tools. By contrast, the birds, but not the primates tested, struggled to attend to multiple variables-where two apparatuses, two tools and two reward qualities were presented simultaneously-without extended experience. These findings indicate: (1) in a similar manner to humans and orangutans, New Caledonian crows and Goffin's cockatoos can flexibly make profitable decisions in some decision-making tooluse tasks, though the birds may struggle when tasks become more complex; (2) children and orangutans may have a bias to use tools in situations where adults and other tool-making species do not.

Self-care tooling innovation in a disabled kea (Nestor notabilis)

“…The ability to flexibly combine information in a domain-general manner 43 , when combined with playfulness and neophilic exploration of the environment, may be an important driver of technical innovations in kea and other species 44 , 45 . These results therefore support recent claims that tool use, including tooling, arises not only from the evolution of specialized physical cognition 46 – 49 , but can be innovated, when ecologically necessary, by species with sufficiently domain-general cognition 21 , 47 – 49 .…”

Young children spontaneously invent three different types of associative tool use behaviour

“…However, there might be an alternative hypothesis explaining the differences between Tool set and Sequential tool use: the low ATU and Correct success rates in the Sequential tool use rates could be explained by the fact that both tasks consisted of two separate apparatuses, which might have been an additional source of difficulty for the children. Yet there is no evidence in the literature that the use of (spatially separate) apparatuses or platforms poses an additional cognitive demand in tool use tasks for non-human animals or children (Gruber et al, 2019 ; Jackson, 1942 ; Martin-Ordas et al, 2012 ; Miller et al, 2020 ; Mulcahy et al, 2005 ; Warden et al, 1940 ). Experiment 2 controlled for the number of apparatuses (using a single apparatus for both ATU versions) and found that Tool set and Sequential tool use did not differ in either ATU nor Correct success rates.…”

New Caledonian crows plan for specific future tool use

“…All birds participated in various experiments before the presented study [ 31 – 33 ]. The training specifically required for the current study are tool use training, tool selection training, apparatus functionality training, hook training and tool transport training, five choice tool functionality training, and the temporal sequence training, which is outlined in the description of Conditions 1 and 2.…”