Generalization between productive use and receptive discrimination of names in an artificial visual language by a chimpanzee

Kojima, Tetsuya

doi:10.1007/bf02735739

Cited by 37 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Equivalence relations (Sidman, 1986), which take the form of reflexivity, transitivity, and symmetry, also form a stimulus class. Aside from evidence of transitivity in nonhuman animals (Boysen, Berntson, Shreyer, & Quigley, 1993;D'Amato, Salmon, Loukas, & Tomie, 1985;Yamamoto & Asano, 1995) and, in some cases, claims of symmetry (Cerutti & Rumbaugh, 1993;Kojima, 1984;Savage-Rumbaugh, 1986;Tomonaga et al, 1991; but see also Sidman et al, 1982;Yamamoto & Asano, 1995), equivalence relations are not well established in nonhuman animals (McIntire, Cleary, & Thompson, 1987;Schusterman & Kastak, 1993;Sidman, 2000;Zentall & Urcuioli, 1993; see also Hayes, 1989). For 2 chimpanzees in the current experiment (Sherman and Lana), symmetry was not evident when they were younger and had been exposed to standard symmetry tests (Dugdale & Lowe, 2000).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

Chimpanzee Responding During Matching to Sample: Control by Exclusion

Beran

Washburn

2002

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three chimpanzees performed a computerized matching-to-sample task in which samples were photographs of items and comparison stimuli were geometric symbols called lexigrams. In Experiment 1, samples were either defined (i.e., they represented items that were associated already with a specific lexigram label by the chimpanzees) or undefined (i.e., they did not have an already learned association with a specific lexigram). On each trial, the foil (incorrect) comparison could be either a defined or an undefined lexigram. All 3 chimpanzees selected the correct comparison for undefined samples at a level significantly better than chance only when the foil comparison was defined. In Experiment 2, three comparisons were presented on each trial, and in Experiment 3, four comparisons were presented on each trial. For Experiments 2 and 3, the foil comparisons consisted of either defined or undefined comparisons or a mixture of both. For these two experiments, when the chimpanzees were presented with an undefined sample, they typically made selections of only undefined comparisons. These data indicate that the chimpanzees responded through use of exclusion. A final experiment, however, indicated that, despite the use of exclusion to complete trials with undefined samples correctly, the chimpanzees did not learn new associations between undefined samples and comparisons.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

Chimpanzee Responding During Matching to Sample: Control by Exclusion

Beran

Washburn

2002

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…She had a long training history of artificial language (see ASANO et al, 1982;KOJIMA, 1984;MATSUZAWA, 1985a, b). On weekdays, she served as a subject for other experiments or played with other chimpanzees during daytime, and was back into the individual cage at about 4:00 p.m. On holidays, she was in her cage all day long.…”

Section: Methods Subjectmentioning

confidence: 99%

A new procedure to study the perceptual world of animals with sensory reinforcement: Recognition of humans by a chimpanzee

Fujita

Matsuzawa

1986

Primates

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. A female chimpanzee touched a button to produce colored slides of pictures. Slides were present as long as she kept touching the button. Repeated touch within 10 sec after the previous release produced the same slides again. The slide was changed when 10 sec passed after she released the button. The duration of a touching response and the interval between the responses were calculated for each of 100 slides. The data for each slide were plotted on the two-dimensional space constructed with response duration and response interval. A clear differentiation of distribution on this space was found between slides with humans and those without humans. The result demonstrated that the chimpanzee recognized humans as a category, as well as that this procedure is effective for the study of the perceptual world of animals based on the reinforcing function of stimuli.

show abstract

“…These characteristics of chimpanzee grooming are important when we compare clique sizes. Furthermore, the chimpanzee is genetically one of the closest species to humans (Caccone and Powell 1989) and also they show the highest intelligence among nonhuman primates as well as some language ability in laboratory studies (Kojima 1984;Savage-Rumbaugh et al 1978).…”

Section: Clique Size For Primate Groomingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is human conversation more efficient than chimpanzee grooming?

Nakamura

2000

Hum Nat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clique sizes for chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) grooming and for human conversation are compared in order to test Robin Dunbar's hypothesis that human language is almost three times as efficient a bonding mechanism as primate grooming. Recalculation of the data provided by Dunbar et al. (1995) reveals that the average clique size for human conversation is 2.72 whereas that of chimpanzee grooming is shown to be 2.18. The efficiency of human conversation and actual chimpanzee grooming over Dunbar's primate grooming model (always one-to-one and a one-way interaction) is 1.27 and 1.25, respectively, when we take role alternation into account. Chimpanzees can obtain about the same efficiency as humans in terms of quantity of social interactions because their grooming is often mutual and polyadic.

show abstract

Generalization between productive use and receptive discrimination of names in an artificial visual language by a chimpanzee

Cited by 37 publications

References 11 publications

Chimpanzee Responding During Matching to Sample: Control by Exclusion

Chimpanzee Responding During Matching to Sample: Control by Exclusion

A new procedure to study the perceptual world of animals with sensory reinforcement: Recognition of humans by a chimpanzee

Is human conversation more efficient than chimpanzee grooming?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About