Strategies used to combine seriated cups by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), bonobos (Pan paniscus), and capuchins (Cebus apella).

Johnson-Pynn, Julie S.; Fragaszy, Dorothy M.; Hirsh, Elizabeth M.; Brakke, Karen; Greenfield, Patricia M.

doi:10.1037/0735-7036.113.2.137

Cited by 57 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 31 publications

(72 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, the age at which individuals in the wild acquire the skill is higher in ''level 2'' than in ''level 1'' tool use . Several previous studies have also focused on the hierarchical structure of object-object combination in human children and in non-human primates as an indicator of cognitive capability (Greenfield et al 1972;Johnson-Pynn et al 1999;Westergaard 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How does stone-tool use emerge? Introduction of stones and nuts to na�ve chimpanzees in captivity

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nut-cracking behavior has been reported in several communities in West Africa but not in East and Central Africa. Furthermore, even within nut-cracking communities, there are individuals who do not acquire the skill. The present study aimed to clarify the cognitive capability required for nut-cracking behavior and the process through which the the nut-cracking behavior emerges. To examine emergence, we provided three naive adult chimpanzees with a single opportunity to observe human models. A human tester demonstrated nut-cracking behavior using a pair of stones and then supplied stones and nuts to the chimpanzee subjects. Two out of three chimpanzees proceeded to hit a nut on an anvil stone using a hammer stone, one of whom succeeded in cracking open the nuts during the first test session. The third chimpanzee failed to crack open nuts. We used four variables (object, location, body part used, and action) to describe stone/nut manipulation in order to analyze further the patterns of object manipulation exhibited by the subjects. The analysis revealed that there were three main difficulties associated with nut-cracking behavior. (1) The chimpanzee who failed at the task never showed hitting action. (2) The chimpanzee who failed at the task manipulated nuts but rarely stones. (3) The combination of three objects was not commonly observed in the three chimpanzees. We also discuss our results with reference to the effect of enculturation in captivity and the social context of learning in the wild.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How does stone-tool use emerge? Introduction of stones and nuts to na�ve chimpanzees in captivity

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The 3 chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) observed in this experiment were Lana (female, 30 years of age), Sherman (male, 28 years of age), and Panzee (female, 15 years of age). These chimpanzees had been involved in comparative research projects focused on language acquisition (Rumbaugh, 1977;Savage-Rumbaugh, 1986), numerical competence (Beran, 2001;Beran & Rumbaugh, 2001;Rumbaugh, Hopkins, Washburn, & Savage-Rumbaugh, 1989), memory (Beran et al, 2000;Menzel, 1999), and other topics from cognitive psychology and neuropsychology (e.g., Beran, Savage-Rumbaugh, Pate, & Rumbaugh, 1999;Hopkins, Morris, Savage-Rumbaugh, & Rumbaugh, 1992;Hopkins, Washburn, & Rumbaugh, 1990;Johnson-Pynn, Fragaszy, Hirsh, Brakke, & Greenfield, 1999).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chimpanzee Responding During Matching to Sample: Control by Exclusion

Beran

Washburn

2002

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three chimpanzees performed a computerized matching-to-sample task in which samples were photographs of items and comparison stimuli were geometric symbols called lexigrams. In Experiment 1, samples were either defined (i.e., they represented items that were associated already with a specific lexigram label by the chimpanzees) or undefined (i.e., they did not have an already learned association with a specific lexigram). On each trial, the foil (incorrect) comparison could be either a defined or an undefined lexigram. All 3 chimpanzees selected the correct comparison for undefined samples at a level significantly better than chance only when the foil comparison was defined. In Experiment 2, three comparisons were presented on each trial, and in Experiment 3, four comparisons were presented on each trial. For Experiments 2 and 3, the foil comparisons consisted of either defined or undefined comparisons or a mixture of both. For these two experiments, when the chimpanzees were presented with an undefined sample, they typically made selections of only undefined comparisons. These data indicate that the chimpanzees responded through use of exclusion. A final experiment, however, indicated that, despite the use of exclusion to complete trials with undefined samples correctly, the chimpanzees did not learn new associations between undefined samples and comparisons.

show abstract

“…Alongside the attempts to teach primates to sign (e.g., Nim Chimpsky, Washoe the chimpanzee, Koko the gorilla, etc. ), which were relatively successful relative to the prior failed attempts to teach primates to speak, some researchers have looked to "action grammars" as precursors of linguistic syntax (Greenfield et al, 1972;Greenfield, 1991Greenfield, , 1998Johnson-Pynn et al, 1999;Fujita, 2007Fujita, , 2009. Interestingly for the present purposes, Greenfield (1991) has suggested a parallel between action grammars and the combination of phonemes into words.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%