Exploring the role of individual learning in animal tool-use

Abstract

The notion that tool-use is unique to humans has long been refuted by the growing number of observations of animals using tools across various contexts. Yet, the mechanisms behind the emergence and sustenance of these tool-use repertoires are still heavily debated. We argue that the current animal behaviour literature is biased towards a social learning approach, in which animal, and in particular primate, tool-use repertoires are thought to require social learning mechanisms (copying variants of social learning are most often invoked). However, concrete evidence for a widespread dependency on social learning is still lacking. On the other hand, a growing body of observational and experimental data demonstrates that various animal species are capable of acquiring the forms of their tool-use behaviours via individual learning, with (non-copying) social learning regulating the frequencies of the behavioural forms within (and, indirectly, between) groups. As a first outline of the extent of the role of individual learning in animal tool-use, a literature review of reports of the spontaneous acquisition of animal tool-use behaviours was carried out across observational and experimental studies. The results of this review suggest that perhaps due to the pervasive focus on social learning in the literature, accounts of the individual learning of tool-use forms by naïve animals may have been largely overlooked, and their importance under-examined.

Processing of novel food reveals payoff and rank-biased social learning in a wild primate

“…Note that we avoided using the term “copying” across the manuscript which is strongly associated to “imitation” by some scholars 39 , 40 , although not by all 11 , 41 . Here, we do not make any assumption and conclusion regarding the social learning mechanisms (action form copying versus non-form copying/socially mediated individual learning: 40 ) implied in the acquisition of the peanuts processing techniques.…”

The Method of Local Restriction: in search of potential great ape culture‐dependent forms

“…In order to conclude robustly that copying is ultimately responsible for local restriction, additional evidence is needed. Such evidence can be obtained by testing whether locally restricted and unique behaviours are re‐innovated during baseline tests (Bandini & Tennie, 2017, 2019, 2020; Bandini et al ., 2020). During baseline tests, individuals naïve to the target behaviour are provided with the raw materials necessary to perform the behaviour in question.…”

Implementing long‐term baselines into primate tool‐use studies

“…Once the naivety of the subjects is established, the materials (and motivation) of the target behavior can be provided and researchers can simply observe whether the subjects develop the behavior. These baselines can exclude the role of copying types of social learning (mechanisms that transmit the form of a behavior such as imitation; see also Bandini & Tennie, 2020) as no demonstrations are provided of the target tool‐use behavior before or during testing. However, by introducing novel testing apparatuses and objects, noncopying social learning variants (mechanisms that influence the development of a behavior but do not transmit the form; Bandini & Tennie, 2020) such as stimulus enhancement will increase the likelihood of subjects developing the behavior (see also Bandini et al, 2020).…”

“…These baselines can exclude the role of copying types of social learning (mechanisms that transmit the form of a behavior such as imitation; see also Bandini & Tennie, 2020) as no demonstrations are provided of the target tool‐use behavior before or during testing. However, by introducing novel testing apparatuses and objects, noncopying social learning variants (mechanisms that influence the development of a behavior but do not transmit the form; Bandini & Tennie, 2020) such as stimulus enhancement will increase the likelihood of subjects developing the behavior (see also Bandini et al, 2020). Therefore, if the behavior emerges in a baseline condition, it is likely that individual learning, supported by noncopying social learning, is sufficient to drive the acquisition of the behavior.…”

“…Therefore, if the behavior emerges in a baseline condition, it is likely that individual learning, supported by noncopying social learning, is sufficient to drive the acquisition of the behavior. If, on the other hand, the behavior does not emerge in the baseline, then it is possible that copying variants of social learning are required (Bandini & Tennie, 2020; Bandini et al, 2020). The role of copying social learning would then need to be explicitly tested with an alternative, targeted, experimental paradigm (such as introducing a trained conspecific who can act as a demonstrator of the target behavior).…”