Investigation of inanimate objects by the greater bushbaby (Otolemur garnettii)

Renner, Michael; Bennett, Allyson J.; Ford, Michele L.; Pierre, Peter J.

doi:10.1007/bf02381193

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In some cases, this seems unlikely, particularly in species such as ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta), where locomotor and social play cease in adulthood, yet they are sometimes reported to "play with objects" (unpublished data). Often "play" or manipulation behaviour seen in adults reflects speciestypical behaviours, such as foraging, scent-marking, and nest-building, particularly in prosimians (Ehrlich 1970;Jaenicke & Ehrlich 1982;Jolly 1964;Renner et al 1992). Differences in object manipulation have also been noted for wild versus captive animals, with wild animals showing more interest in animate objects and recently captured animals showing less interest in objects compared to their captive-reared counterparts.…”

Section: Object Manipulation and Playmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Evolution of Grooming and Hand Use in Primates: An Interdisciplinary Perspective

Dunkel¹

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evolution of manual grooming and its implications have received little attention in the quest to understand the origins of simian primates and their social and technical intelligence. All simians groom manually, whereas prosimians groom orally despite comparable manual dexterity between some members of the two groups. Simians also exhibit a variable propensity for the manipulation of inanimate, non-food objects, which has culminated in tool making and tool use in some species. However, lemuriform primates also seem capable of tool use with training. Furthermore, lemuriforms appear to understand the concept of a tool and use their own body parts as “tools”, despite not using inanimate objects. This suggests that prosimian primates are pre-adapted for proprioceptive object manipulation and tool use, but do not express these cognitive abilities by default. This essay explores the paleontological, anatomical, cognitive, ethological, and neurological roots of these abilities and attempts to explain this behavioural divide between simians and prosimians. Common misconceptions about early primate evolution and captive behaviours are addressed, and chronological inconsistencies with Machiavellian Intelligence are examined. A “licking to picking” hypothesis is also proposed to explain a potential link between manual grooming and object manipulation, and to reconcile the inconsistencies of Machiavellian Intelligence. Bayesian decision theory, the evolution of the parietal cortex and enhanced proprioception, and analogies with behavioural changes resulting from artificial selection may help provide new insights into the minds of both our primate kin and ourselves.

show abstract

Section: Object Manipulation and Playmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Evolution of Grooming and Hand Use in Primates: An Interdisciplinary Perspective

Dunkel¹

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nor did they report and analyze the varying behavioral elements used when interacting with different enrichments. One or more of these limitations seem to characterize most studies designed to evaluate differential efficacy of enrichments (e.g., Crockett, Bielitzki, Carey, & Velez, 1989; Line & Morgan, 1991; Paquette & Prescott, 1988; Renner, Bennett, Ford, & Pierre, 1992; Schapiro & Bloomsmith, 1994; Wilson, Mitlohner, Morrow-Tesch, Dailey, & McGlone, 2002; for a review, see Swaisgood & Shepherdson, in press-a). In one of the best efforts to test the effects of enrichment properties on efficacy, Vick, Anderson, and Young (2000) in their studies of macaques compared the effectiveness of plastic fruits in three conditions: as empty unresponsive objects, as responsive noise-making shakers, and as feeding devices.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How do giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) respond to varying properties of enrichments? A comparison of behavioral profiles among five enrichment items.

Swaisgood¹,

White²,

Zhou³

et al. 2005

Journal of Comparative Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the responses of 14 giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) to 5 enrichment items (3 manipulable objects, 2 feeding devices) that possess different properties affording varying behavioral opportunities. Enrichment items were quantitatively described by using 12 properties. Pandas displayed no preferences among the 5 enrichment treatments, all of which had similar positive effects on behavioral measures of well-being (behavioral diversity, stereotypy). However, each item promoted a distinct behavioral profile, readily mapped onto the enrichment's properties. These results suggest that it may be important to stimulate behavioral diversity but that specific behaviors or enrichment properties are not required. The unique behavioral topography seen with these enrichments also suggests that providing multiple enrichments with varying properties will maximize overall behavioral diversity.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, previous research suggests that prosimians exhibit behavioral tendencies that distinguish one individual from another (e.g., Jaenicke & Erlich, 1982; Watson, Schiff, & Ward, 1994). Furthermore, prosimians are differentially responsive to novel situations and objects (Erlich, 1970; Glickman & Scroges, 1966; Jaenicke & Erlich, 1982; Renner, Bennett, Ford, & Pierre, 1992; Watson et al, 1994). Jolly (1964) described qualitative differences in the performance of object manipulation tasks by individual greater bushbabies ( Otolemur crassicaudatus ) and these differences appeared to be related to qualitative differences in behavioral predispositions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Temperament and problem solving in the small-eared bushbaby (Otolemur garnettii).

Watson¹,

Ward²

1996

Journal of Comparative Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bushbabies (Otolemur garnettii) were tested in an empty open field, with novel objects, and with a caged live snake. Each was also tested in the home cage on a latch-box problem. Principal-components analysis of novelty test scores revealed 4 factors (activity, curiosity, boldness, escape). Factor scores were collapsed into an index of behavioral inhibition and analyzed for group effects. Left-handed (LH) subjects were less inhibited than right-handed subjects. Underlying factor scores showed laterality effects only in activity: a main effect with LH subjects more active, an interaction with young, LH subjects higher on activity than other groups. The 17 subjects that solved the latch-box problem had higher scores on curiosity than the 18 that attempted but did not solve the problem.Temperament may be viewed as a synthesis, of behavioral qualities that are "relatively consistent, basic dispositions inherent in the (individual) that underlie and modulate the expression of activity, reactivity, emotionality, and sociability" (Goldsmith et al., 1987, p. 524). One aspect of temperament, response to novelty, has been studied extensively in children (see Kagan, Reznick, & Snidman, 1989, for review) and rhesus monkeys (see Higley & Suomi, 1989, for review). Kagan and his colleagues (e.g., Kagan, Reznick, & Snidman, 1987, 1988) have used the terms "behaviorally inhibited" and "behaviorally uninhibited" to describe the responses of children to novel situations. Behaviorally inhibited children are more likely than behaviorally uninhibited children to withdraw from and be subdued in the presence of novelty.Suomi and his colleagues (e.g., Higley & Suomi, 1989;Suomi, 1987) have used the term "reactivity" to describe a similar concept in rhesus monkeys. Like behavioral inhibition (Kagan et al., 1987(Kagan et al., , 1988, reactivity "reflects an affective and behavioral predisposition to respond to novel or challenging stimuli" (Higley & Suomi, 1989, p. 154). Suomi (1987 reported that high-and low-reactive rhesus infants differ in both behavioral and physiological reaction to environmental novelty. Among other behavioral distinctions, highly reactive monkeys display low levels of motor activity and are reluctant to explore novel stimuli. Bolig, Price, O 'Neill, and Suomi (1992) found an inverse relation-

show abstract

Investigation of inanimate objects by the greater bushbaby (Otolemur garnettii)

Cited by 8 publications

References 8 publications

The Evolution of Grooming and Hand Use in Primates: An Interdisciplinary Perspective

The Evolution of Grooming and Hand Use in Primates: An Interdisciplinary Perspective

How do giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) respond to varying properties of enrichments? A comparison of behavioral profiles among five enrichment items.

Temperament and problem solving in the small-eared bushbaby (Otolemur garnettii).

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About