Navigating two-dimensional mazes: chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and capuchins (Cebus apella sp.) profit from experience differently

Abstract

We examined whether navigation is impacted by experience in two species of nonhuman primates. Five chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and seven capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) navigated a cursor, using a joystick, through two-dimensional mazes presented on a computer monitor. Subjects completed 192 mazes, each one time. Each maze contained one to five choices, and in up to three of these choices, the correct path required moving the cursor away from the Euclidean direction toward the goal. Some subjects completed these mazes in a random order (Random group); others in a fixed order by ascending number of choices and ascending number of turns away from goal (Ordered group). Chimpanzees in both groups performed equivalently, demonstrated fewer errors and a higher rate of self-correcting errors with increasing experience at solving the mazes, and made significantly fewer errors than capuchin monkeys. Capuchins were more sensitive to the mode of presentation than chimpanzees: Monkeys in the Ordered group made fewer errors than monkeys in the Random group. However, capuchins’ performance across testing changed little, and they remained particularly susceptible to making errors when the correct path required moving away from the goal. Thus, these two species responded differently to the same spatial challenges and same learning contexts. The findings indicate that chimpanzees have a strong advantage in this task compared to capuchins, no matter how the task is presented. We suggest that differences between the species in the dynamic organization of attention and motor processes contribute to their differences in performance on this task, and predict similar differences in other tasks requiring, as this one does, sustained attention to a dynamic visual display and self-produced movements variably towards and away from a goal.

Looking ahead? Computerized maze task performance by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella), and human children (Homo sapiens).

“…Another approach to examining choice behavior and potential planning in nonhuman animals involves the use of mazes and similar route-taking tasks (Fragaszy, Johnson-Pynn, Hirsh & Brakke, 2003; Fragaszy et al, 2009; Menzel & Menzel, 2007; Miyata & Fujita, 2008; Miyata, Itakura, & Fujita, 2009; Mushiake, Saito, Sakamoto, Sato & Tanji, 2001; Washburn, 1992). For example, Fragaszy et al (2003) first trained chimpanzees and capuchin monkeys to use a joystick to navigate the alleys of computerized mazes consisting of up to five choice points to reach a rewarded goal area.…”

“…Chimpanzees again outperformed capuchins and were unaffected by the training condition, whereas capuchins appeared to benefit from learning the mazes in ascending order. Most recently, Pan et al (2011) further investigated the influence of task experience on maze performance in capuchins by having monkeys perform the same series of mazes as in Fragaszy et al (2009) until they mastered them. These monkeys subsequently exhibited improved performance in novel transfer mazes, particularly those that involved solutions with detours initially leading away from the direction of the goal.…”

Understanding the functional properties of tools: chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) attend to tool features differently

“…Amici et al 2010), as well as in attention management. Fragaszy et al (2009) proposed an ecological perspective to explain the latter difference; capuchins, as smaller animals with a higher risk of predation than chimpanzees, are more ''vigilant'' and interrupt their activity every few seconds to look around themselves. In captivity, where predators are absent, capuchins are still ''vigilant'' while working on experimental problems and often interrupt their ongoing activity.…”

Percussive tool use by Taï Western chimpanzees and Fazenda Boa Vista bearded capuchin monkeys: a comparison

“…[82,83]) and in spatial problem solving tasks (e.g. [73] although not in others e.g. [84,85]), making it plausible that cognition has a role in the observed species differences in behaviour.…”

“…Capuchins position piassava nuts in the pit with the most symmetric sides of the nut facing the wall of the hemispheric pit. This position stabilizes the nut, reducing movement following a strike, and possibly increases the transfer of force to the nut, thereby increasing efficiency, compared to other positions of the nut [19,73].…”