Laterality in quadrupedal and bipedal prosimians: Reach and whole‐body turn in the mouse lemur (<i>Microcebus murinus</i>) and the galago (<i>Galago moholi</i>)

Dodson, Deanna L.; Stafford, Donna K.; Forsythe, Chris; Seltzer, Charles P.; Ward, Jeannette P.

doi:10.1002/ajp.1350260305

Cited by 58 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, M. murinus essentially exhibited a whole-hand grip between the palm and all the fingers and preferred one hand in its first contact with the food. Therefore, the mouth was not always involved in the process of static food grasping, in contrast to what has been reported previously [Bishop, 1964;Dodson et al, 1992;Ward and Hopkins, 1993;Scheumann et al, 2011]. The nature of the food and the omnivorous diet of M. murinus may be linked to the degree of hand use.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 51%

“…In comparison, Prosimii (lemuriforms and lorisiforms) are thought to be less variable in grip posture, to show no digital individualization and to use the mouth for grasping more often [Bishop, 1964]. In order to grasp static foods, the lemuriforms appear to prefer to grasp with the mouth as shown both by observations in the wild [Petter, 1962] and studies on manual preference [Larson et al, 1989;Ward et al, 1990;Milliken et al, 1991a;Dodson et al, 1992;Ward and Hopkins, 1993;Ward, 1995;Leliveld et al, 2008;Nelson et al, 2009;Scheumann et al, 2011]. However, these studies on manual preference often adopted protocols forcing the subjects to take static food through a wire mesh or a slot with their hand.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Food Prehension and Manipulation in Microcebus murinus (Prosimii, Cheirogaleidae)

Reghem¹,

Tia²,

Bels³

et al. 2011

IJFP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among primates, apes and monkeys are known to use their hands and to exhibit independent control of their fingers. In comparison, Prosimii are thought to have less digital individualization and to use their mouth more commonly for prehension. Unfortunately, prehension and manipulation studies in Prosimii have been conducted in conditions constraining the subject to grasp with the hand. Moreover, the effect of food size remains unexplored, even though it could affect the use of the hands versus the mouth. Thus, whether prosimians use the hand or the mouth to grasp and manipulate food items of different sizes in unconstrained conditions remains unclear. To address this question, we characterized the eating and manipulation patterns of Microcebus murinus in unconstrained conditions, using three food sizes. The results showed that M. murinus showed (i) an eating pattern similar to that of rodents, with smaller food items being grasped with the mouth, (ii) a greater tendency to use the hands for prehension of larger foods, and (iii) plasticity during food manipulation similar to that which has been observed in rodents. These results are discussed in the framework of grasping in mammals and are used to discuss the origins of prehension in primates.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 51%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Food Prehension and Manipulation in Microcebus murinus (Prosimii, Cheirogaleidae)

Reghem¹,

Tia²,

Bels³

et al. 2011

IJFP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Likewise, there is no significant hand preference at the population level even when a less stringent a 5 0.01 is used. Our results are in line with other NWM species (see Papademetriou et al [2005] for review) and are also consistent with other suborders which show no population bias toward lateralization of manual function (Prosimians [Cantalupo & Ward, 2000;Dodson et al, 1992;Sanford et al, 1984;Ward & Cantalupo, 1997;Ward et al, 1990]; OWM [Aruguete et al, 1992;Beck & Barton, 1972;Harigel, 1991;Rigamonti et al, 1998;Teichroeb, 1999;Westergaard et al, 2001]; and Apes [Byrne & Byrne, 1993;Colell et al, 1995;Hopkins et al, 1994;Rogers & Kaplan, 1996]). Our results are consistent with the notion that although some species show population level hand bias for specific activities, it is a uniquely human feature to show population level hand preference across a range of different behaviors.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Observations of hand preference in wild groups of white‐faced sakis (Pithecia pithecia) in Suriname

Smith

Thompson

2011

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hand preference is well observed in humans and some primates. Unlike many other primates, however, humans show a consistent hand preference across a variety of tasks, and a distinct right-handed skew at the population level. Although there are a moderate number of published studies, primate hand preference literature is unbalanced by the large number of studies on only a few species. No previous studies have addressed hand preference in white-faced sakis (WFS; Pithecia pithecia). We followed three habituated groups of wild WFS in Suriname and recorded individual hand preference for six different manual behaviors. There was no consistent hand preference across a range of uni-manual behaviors for any individual. Likewise, there were significantly more ambidextrous individuals in the population than expected (χ(2) (df = 2) = 11.2, P = 0.004) and thus, no population level hand preference. Our findings contribute baseline data to the debate of primate hand lateralization, and support the notion that lateralization of hand function does not characterize all species.

show abstract

“…A left bias has also been found in galagos (G. moholi) making 1801 turns and mouse lemurs (Microcebus murinus) making turns less than 1801. No relationship was found between whole-body turning and hand use preferences for either species [Dodson et al, 1992]. In ringtailed lemurs, no group-level preference was found for whole-body turns greater than 1351.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Nonhand use behaviors like head-tilting are important for understanding whether mechanisms for laterality share the same neural system or operate under different neural systems [Cantalupo & Ward, 2000;Dodson et al, 1992;Larson et al, 1989;Ward, 1991;Ward & Cantalupo, 1997]. The lateral bias of other nonmanual behavior patterns has been examined in prosimians.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laterality in semi‐free‐ranging black and white ruffed lemurs (Varecia variegata variegata): head‐tilt correlates with hand use during feeding

Nelson

O'Karma

Ruperti³

et al. 2009

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies in human and chimpanzee infants have identified a predictive relationship between early rightward head orientation and later right hand use. Data from lemurs suggest a leftward bias in hand preference, but there are no data on head positioning. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between head and hand preferences in the black and white ruffed lemur (Varecia variegata variegata). Ruffed lemurs rotate the head vertically during chewing in a behavior called head-tilting. Frequency of head-tilting and bouts of unimanual hand use were measured during normal feeding in a semi-free-ranging population of lemurs. Subjects were provisioned at feeding platforms twice daily with fresh fruits, vegetables, and other food items. Sampling was spontaneous and all observations were videotaped. No group-level bias was found for head-tilting, but a left hand bias emerged for hand use. A positive relationship was found between direction of head-tilting preference and direction of hand use preference such that left head-tilts increased as left hand use increased. Furthermore, left head-tilts increased as the degree of hand preference lateralization increased. When the hand used to bring food to the mouth just before head-tilting was examined, there was a strong bias for the left hand to precede left head-tilts. For right head-tilts, however, lemurs were equally likely to use either hand before head-tilting. Overall a strong relationship was found between the left hand and left head-tilting in black and white ruffed lemurs, suggesting a common link between these behaviors. However, the direction of bias was different from that seen in human and chimpanzee studies. Additional studies on patterns of laterality would be informative for understanding how laterality has changed across the primate order and the adaptive significance of laterality in primates.

show abstract

Laterality in quadrupedal and bipedal prosimians: Reach and whole‐body turn in the mouse lemur (Microcebus murinus) and the galago (Galago moholi)

Cited by 58 publications

References 18 publications

Food Prehension and Manipulation in Microcebus murinus (Prosimii, Cheirogaleidae)

Food Prehension and Manipulation in Microcebus murinus (Prosimii, Cheirogaleidae)

Observations of hand preference in wild groups of white‐faced sakis (Pithecia pithecia) in Suriname

Laterality in semi‐free‐ranging black and white ruffed lemurs (Varecia variegata variegata): head‐tilt correlates with hand use during feeding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About