Inferential reasoning in the visual and auditory modalities by cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus).

Abstract

Nonhuman primate species appear to vary markedly in inferential reasoning abilities as measured by a classic inference-by-exclusion cup task. Even within species, individuals who can solve the cup task in the visual domain often struggle to use analogous auditory cues. Here we tested five cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus), cooperatively breeding New World monkeys that use both visual and auditory information when foraging, to investigate whether they might be able to solve the inference-by-exclusion task in both domains. Four subjects completed the testing series in both domains. Although three subjects performed well in the visual task, only one subject chose food location significantly above chance in response to positive auditory cues. These results demonstrate the first evidence of inferential reasoning abilities in a callitrichid species, while also revealing the performance asymmetry between the visual and auditory modalities observed in many other primates.

Is inferential reasoning a distinctly human cognitive feature? Testing reasoning in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus).

“…When partial information was presented revealing which cup was empty (exclusion cue), the tamarins could select the baited cup significantly more when auditory cues were used (i.e., noiseless shaking) and could use visual absence cues by the last two sessions, but did not use them well at the beginning of testing. These results stand in contrast to the former study with tamarins (Heimbauer et al, 2019), in which most tamarins demonstrated a failure to use auditory cues to find the baited cup either when it indicated where the food was (auditory present) or where the food was not (auditory absent). It is important to note here that we used a different training methodology—our subjects were exposed to the visual and auditory stimuli presented as a compound stimulus and were presented trials that displayed both together until they were responding at a fairly high accuracy (nine out of 12 trials within a single session, or 75% correct).…”

“…The data supported their use of both visual and auditory cues to respond correctly. This extends the prior research on tamarins which suggested that they were more able to find the baited cup with visual cues than auditory ones (Heimbauer et al, 2019). By first exposing subjects to both visual and auditory cues to represent the presence of food, the tamarins may have been able to learn the auditory cues that signaled the presence of food through exposure such that they could use each individual cue, like elements of a compound stimulus, to find the food.…”

“…The only test of reasoning in cotton-top tamarins thus far was conducted by Heimbauer et al (2019) using the traditional two-cup task. There were several phases conducted, which included a control condition for which subjects could not see the baiting and were not offered any cues to the correct location of the bait to ensure they were not finding the treat using olfaction or by experimenter cues.…”

Mason et al Preprint_Goat Emotions, Cognition and Personality

“…Inferential reasoning refers to the capacity to integrate indirect information regarding an event or stimulus to form inferences, enabling animals to better cope with novel challenges (Heimbauer et al 2019). Solutions must be reached without explicit learning and are assumed to be particularly advantageous in unstable, but predictable physical or social environments (Völter andCall 2017, Nawroth et al 2019).…”