Strategic navigation of two-dimensional alley mazes: comparing capuchin monkeys and chimpanzees

Abstract

Planning is an important component of cognition that contributes, for example, to efficient movement through space. In the current study we presented novel two-dimensional alley mazes to four chimpanzees and three capuchin monkeys to identify the nature and efficiency of planning in relation to varying task parameters. All the subjects solved more mazes without error than expected by chance, providing compelling evidence that both species planned their choices in some manner. The probability of making a correct choice on mazes designed to be more demanding and presented later in the testing series was higher than on earlier, simpler mazes (chimpanzees), or unchanged (capuchin monkeys), suggesting microdevelopment of strategic choice. Structural properties of the mazes affected both species' choices. Capuchin monkeys were less likely than chimpanzees to take a correct path that initially led away from the goal but that eventually led to the goal. Chimpanzees were more likely to make an error by passing a correct path than by turning onto a wrong path. Chimpanzees and one capuchin made more errors on choices farther in sequence from the goal. Each species corrected errors before running into the end of an alley in approximately 40% of cases. Together, these findings suggest nascent planning abilities in each species, and the prospect for significant development of strategic planning capabilities on tasks presenting multiple simultaneous or sequential spatial relations. The computerized maze paradigm appears well suited to investigate movement planning and spatial perception in human and nonhuman primates alike.

Macaques (Macaca nemestrina) recognize when they are being imitated

“…in virtual maze tasks; Fragaszy et al 2003). Such cognitive limitations may be sufficient to hamper the production of imitation.…”

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.…”

“…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. The researchers then tested the animals on novel mazes including some that involved solutions that initially led away from the direction of the goal before reaching the end (and thus required animals to look beyond the next one or more turns before getting too far into the maze).…”

“…We also predicted that chimpanzees might approach the performance levels of children overall, although we expected that older children would be more proficient with all maze types relative to younger children. Finally, we predicted that mazes requiring movements away from the end goal or a change of direction would prove especially difficult for the monkey species based on previous research (e.g., Fragaszy et al, 2003). Such changes might also prove difficult – although to a lesser degree – for chimpanzees, given past research showing that such movements sometimes disrupted performance in other maze tasks (Iversen & Matsuzawa, 2001; Völter & Call, 2014a).…”

Secuencias De Forrajeo en Monos Capuchinos en Cautiverio: Aprendizaje Y Memoria en Contexto De Grupo

“…Los estudios en cautiverio realizados hasta el momento para evaluar la memoria espacial de los capuchinos incluyeron sólo investigaciones que prueban a los individuos aislados de su grupo, una situación totalmente opuesta a lo que ocurre en vida silvestre donde este comportamiento ha evolucionado (Fragaszy, Johnson Pynn, Hirsh, & Brakke, 2003;D´Amato & Buckiewicz, 1980en Fragaszy, Visalberghi, & Fedigan, 2004Potì, 2000;Potì, Bartolommei, & Saparoti, 2005;Tavares & Tomaz, 2000;Spinozzi, Lubrano, & Truppa, 2002;Rosengart & Fragaszy, 2003).…”