Object Permanence in Common Marmosets (Callithrix jacchus).

Mendes, Natacha; Huber, Ludwig

doi:10.1037/0735-7036.118.1.103

Cited by 60 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…de Blois & Novak, 1994;de Blois et al, 1998;Deppe et al, 2009;Fedor et al, 2008;Mendes & Huber, 2004;Neiworth et al, 2003]. We also analyzed all the trials in the sequential visible task in the present study, for comparison with past research.…”

Section: Visible Displacementsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Gibbons and marmosets have been tested on invisible displacement controls [Fedor et al, 2008;Mendes & Huber, 2004]; however, small sample sizes and high individual variability in performance makes it difficult to come to firm conclusions about these species' understanding of invisible displacements. Recent studies on domestic dogs have indicated that this species cannot solve rigorously controlled invisible displacements [Collier-Baker et al, 2004;Fiset & LeBlanc, 2007].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Can Black‐and‐White Ruffed Lemurs (Varecia variegata) Solve Object Permanence Tasks?

Mallavarapu

Perdue

Stoinski

et al. 2013

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined object permanence in black-and-white-ruffed lemurs (Varecia variegata) at Zoo Atlanta. A series of visible and invisible displacement tasks with suitable controls were presented to five adult subjects. Subjects performed significantly above chance on all regular tasks, except for the double invisible displacements. Subjects failed visible and invisible controls. Failure on the control trials did not appear to be because subjects used the "last box touched" strategy (subjects did not choose the last box touched significantly more than expected by chance). However, a substantial percentage of choices was made to the last box touched by the experimenter. There was no significant difference between this percentage, and the percentage of choices made to the baited box (on both visible and invisible controls), which indicates that subjects were drawn to both boxes which the experimenter visited/touched, and thus failed the controls. Based on the results from the present study, we believe that there is no evidence that black-and-white ruffed lemurs understand visible and invisible tasks in the traditional object permanence battery.

show abstract

Section: Visible Displacementsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Black‐and‐White Ruffed Lemurs (Varecia variegata) Solve Object Permanence Tasks?

Mallavarapu

Perdue

Stoinski

et al. 2013

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, in a computerized task, rhesus macaques could predict the path of an occluded object, suggesting that they could represent unperceived object movements (Fillion, Washburn, & Gullege, 1996). In a recent study (Mendes & Huber, 2004), 2 out of 11 common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) achieved very high scores in successive invisible displacement tasks, suggesting that this species is also able to represent the existence and the movements of invisible objects. Neiworth et al (2003) claimed that cotton top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) also reach Stage 6 of object permanence; however, their methodology was unusual in that they opened the displacement device between the two boxes of all double invisible displacements.…”

Section: Object Permanence In Great Apes and Monkeysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Object permanence tests on gibbons (Hylobatidae).

Fedor¹,

Skollár²,

Szerencsy³

et al. 2008

Journal of Comparative Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ten gibbons of various species (Symphalangus syndactylus, Hylobates lar, Nomascus gabriellae, and Nomascus leucogenys) were tested on object permanence tasks. Three identical wooden boxes, presented in a linear line, were used to hide pieces of food. The authors conducted single visible, single invisible, double invisible, and control displacements, in both random and nonrandom order. During invisible displacements, the experimenter hid the object in her hand before putting it into a box. The performance of gibbons was better than expected by chance in all the tests, except for the randomly ordered double displacement. However, individual analysis of performance showed great variability across subjects, and only 1 gibbon is assumed to have solved single visible and single invisible displacements without recourse to a strategy that the control test eliminated.

show abstract

“…Studies have also begun to reveal how other species represent objects (e.g., Pepperberg and Kozak 1986;Goulet et al 1994;Funk 1996;Pepperberg et al 1997;Pollock et al 2000;Cooper et al 2003;Fiset et al 2003Collier-Baker et al 2004;Mendes and Huber 2004;Fiset and Doré 2006;Zucca et al 2007;Miklósi 2007;Miller et al 2009;Whitt et al 2009;Deppe et al 2009). Indeed, such explorations could provide new insights into tasks with human and non-human primate populations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Domesticated dogs’ (Canis familiaris) use of the solidity principle

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organisms must often make predictions about the trajectories of moving objects. However, often these objects become hidden. To later locate such objects, the organism must maintain a representation of the object in memory and generate an expectation about where it will later appear. We explored adult dogs' knowledge and use of the solidity principle (that one solid object cannot pass through another solid object) by evaluating search behavior. Subjects watched as a treat rolled down an inclined tube into a box. The box either did or did not contain a solid wall dividing it in half. To Wnd the treat, subjects had to modify their search behavior based on the presence or absence of the wall, which either did or did not block the treat's trajectory. Dogs correctly searched the near location when the barrier was present and the far location when the barrier was absent. They displayed this behavior from the Wrst trial, as well as performed correctly when trial types were intermingled. These results suggest that dogs direct their searches in accordance with the solidity principle.

show abstract

Object Permanence in Common Marmosets (Callithrix jacchus).

Cited by 60 publications

References 36 publications

Can Black‐and‐White Ruffed Lemurs (Varecia variegata) Solve Object Permanence Tasks?

Can Black‐and‐White Ruffed Lemurs (Varecia variegata) Solve Object Permanence Tasks?

Object permanence tests on gibbons (Hylobatidae).

Domesticated dogs’ (Canis familiaris) use of the solidity principle

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About