Object permanence tests on gibbons (Hylobatidae).

Fedor, Anna; Skollár, Gabriella; Szerencsy, Nóra; Ujhelyi, Mária

doi:10.1037/0735-7036.122.4.403

Cited by 31 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 54 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%

“…de Blois & Novak, 1994;Natale, 1989;Neiworth et al, 2003], one gibbon [Fedor et al, 2008], domestic cats and dogs [see Dumas, 1987 andGoulet, 1998 for reviews], a few lemur species [Deppe et al, 2009], and bottlenose dolphins [Jaakkola et al, 2010, but see discussion regarding a training procedure implemented, which might have contributed to success]. Furthermore, research indicates that single visible displacements are easier to solve than double visible displacements [e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…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 2 more Smart Citations

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: 96%

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

show abstract

“…Research to date indicates that Piagetian visible displacement tasks with some form of control can be solved by all great ape species (Natale 1989;de Blois et al 1998;Call 2001;Barth and Call 2006), one gibbon (Fedor et al 2008), several monkey species (e.g., Natale 1989;de Blois and Novak 1994;Neiworth et al 2003), a few lemur species (Deppe et al 2009), domestic cats and dogs (see Dumas 1987 andGoulet 1998 for reviews), and bottlenose dolphins (Jaakkola et al 2010). Research also indicates that among nonhuman animals, only the great ape species (orangutans, gorillas, bonobos, and chimpanzees) can solve single invisible controls and adjacent double invisible displacements without the use of associative strategies (de Blois et al 1998;Call 2001;Barth and Call 2006;CollierBaker and Suddendorf 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Double invisible displacement understanding in orangutans: testing in non-locomotor and locomotor space

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nonadjacent double invisible displacement task has been used to test for the ability of different species to mentally represent the unperceived trajectory of an object. The task typically requires three occluders/boxes in a linear array and involves hiding an object in one of two nonadjacent boxes visited in succession. Previous research indicates that 19-, 26-, and 30-month-old children and various nonhuman species cannot solve these displacements. It has been hypothesized that this is because individuals are unable to inhibit searching in the unbaited center box that was never visited by the experimenter. It has been suggested that presenting the task in a large-scale locomotor space might allow individuals to overcome this inhibition problem. In the present study, we tested orangutans on adjacent and nonadjacent double invisible displacements with the traditional setup (experiment 1) and in locomotor space with boxes placed 1.22 m apart (experiment 2). In both experiments, subjects were able to solve adjacent, but not nonadjacent, trials. The failure on nonadjacent trials appeared to be because of an inability to inhibit sequential search on the second choice as well as because of a large number of first-choice errors (directly choosing an incorrect box). The current results support previous findings that orangutans exhibit some constraints when representing the invisible trajectory of objects.

show abstract

“…Several gibbon behavioral characteristics could explain their apparent lack of abilities and contradicting results of previous studies. Gibbons have notoriously short attention spans [Fedor et al, 2008] potentially losing interest after only a few trials, impeding learning set formation. Also, gibbons rely heavily on their visual cognitive abilities-it has been found that gibbons are competent in detecting the visual orientation of other species as well as their own and possess some knowledge of how visual gaze direction relates to external stimuli [Horton & Caldwell, 2006].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preliminary investigation of flexibility in learning color‐reward associations in gibbons (Hylobatidae)

D'Agostino

Cunningham

2015

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies in learning set formation have shown that most animal species can learn to learn with subsequent novel presentations being solved in fewer presentations than when they first encounter a task. Gibbons (Hylobatidae) have generally struggled with these tasks and do not show the learning to learn pattern found in other species. This is surprising given their phylogenetic position and level of cortical development. However, there have been conflicting results with some studies demonstrating higher level learning abilities in these small apes. This study attempts to clarify whether gibbons can in fact use knowledge gained during one learning task to facilitate performance on a similar, but novel problem that would be a precursor to development of a learning set. We tested 16 captive gibbons' ability to associate color cues with provisioned food items in two experiments where they experienced a period of learning followed by experimental trials during which they could potentially use knowledge gained in their first learning experience to facilitate solution I subsequent novel tasks. Our results are similar to most previous studies in that there was no evidence of gibbons being able to use previously acquired knowledge to solve a novel task. However, once the learning association was made, the gibbons performed well above chance. We found no differences across color associations, indicating learning was not affected by the particular color / reward association. However, there were variations in learning performance with regard to genera. The hoolock (Hoolock leuconedys) and siamang (Symphalangus syndactylus) learned the fastest and the lar group (Hylobates sp.) learned the slowest. We caution these results could be due to the small sample size and because of the captive environment in which these gibbons were raised. However, it is likely that environmental variability in the native habitats of the subjects tested could facilitate the evolution of flexible learning in some genera. Further comparative study is necessary in order to incorporate realistic cognitive variables into foraging models.

show abstract

Object permanence tests on gibbons (Hylobatidae).

Cited by 31 publications

References 54 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?

Double invisible displacement understanding in orangutans: testing in non-locomotor and locomotor space

Preliminary investigation of flexibility in learning color‐reward associations in gibbons (Hylobatidae)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About