The effect of body orientation on judgments of human visual attention in western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla).

Bania, Amanda E.; Stromberg, Erin E.

doi:10.1037/a0027261

Cited by 12 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a terrestrial species of monkeys such as red-capped mangabeys, which may keep monitoring their upward environment even during a social interaction, we hypothesise that head posture is not the most significant cue to predict recipient’s incapacity to perceive their visual gesture. Instead, we hypothesise that similarly to gorillas or orangutans, this assessment is mainly based on recipient’s body orientation 56 , 70 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Red-capped mangabeys (Cercocebus torquatus) adapt their interspecific gestural communication to the recipient’s behaviour

Aychet¹,

Pezzino²,

Rossard³

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sensitivity to recipient’s attention and responsiveness are critical markers of intentional communication. Although previous research showed that ape gestures can be intentional, few studies have yet addressed this question concerning monkeys. Here, we characterise the effect of a recipient’s presence, attentional state and responsiveness on the interspecific gestural communication of captive red-capped mangabeys ( Cercocebus torquatus ). Previous reports showed that they produced learnt begging gestures towards a human recipient preferentially when the latter was facing them. We used here a novel setup that allows subjects to move around an experimenter and to use different modalities (visual and acoustic) to communicate. We found that when the recipient was not facing them, mangabeys moved to a position in the visual field of their recipient rather than using attention-getters. Interestingly, unlike apes, they did not elaborate their communication visually or acoustically when the experimenter did not respond favourably to their begging. However, our results may suggest that begging gestures were goal-directed, since mangabeys inhibited them when the experimenter was not available to answer immediately (i.e. give a reward). Overall, red-capped mangabeys’ interspecific visual communication presented intentionality features, but their use of begging gestures was less flexible than that of great apes in similar situations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Red-capped mangabeys (Cercocebus torquatus) adapt their interspecific gestural communication to the recipient’s behaviour

Aychet¹,

Pezzino²,

Rossard³

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bottlenose dolphins showed similar results, paying more attention to the body than the head of their caretakers (Tomonaga, Uwano, Ogura, & Saito, 2010). Bonobos (Pan paniscus), gorillas and orangutans understand human attentive states using head cues (Bania & Stromberg, 2013;Tempelman et al, 2011). Moreover, these primates selected humans who were in the best position to give them food (e.g., body turned but hand towards the subject) (Tempelman et al, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…. Some nonhuman primates, for example gorillas (Gorilla gorilla) have demonstrated this ability too: they used body cues, but also focused on a human's gaze to make their choice (Bania & Stromberg, 2013). Orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) understand human head cues (Tempelmann, Kaminski, & Liebal, 2011), and cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus oedipus) use human body and gaze cues to discriminate human attention (Santos & Hauser, 1999).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Are California Sea Lions (Zalophus californianus) Sensitive to the Attentional State of their Caretakers?

Penel¹,

Delfour²,

Asterix³

2014

AB&C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human-animal relations appear in various contexts (homes, farms, zoos, aquatic parks, etc.) possibly favoring the emergence of the ability to understand heterospecific communication signals in several species. Studies show that dogs (Canis familiaris) have developed the ability to attribute attention to humans, reading their body, head and gaze cues. Horses (Equus caballus) and other species including African gray parrots (Psittacus erithacus) show this ability too. Here, we asked if California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) can discriminate the attentional state of their caretakers. Four sea lions were tested in three increasingly complex experiments requiring them to make a choice between an attentive versus an inattentive caretaker. The first test asked whether sea lions could attribute attention to a human facing them versus facing away. In the second test, the caretaker's head orientation towards the sea lion served as the attentional cue. In the final test, the inattentive caretaker wore dark sunglasses. The results were heterogeneous and showed a higher rate of success than failure in the test 1, but the opposite in test 2. The results in the test 3 were not significant. Furthermore, the latency measures suggested that the subjects did not understand the tasks. It therefore appears that in the situation used here sea lions mainly focused their attention on the experimenter's body orientation; the head did not seem to be a pertinent cue.

show abstract

“…The first is a choice paradigm in which a subject must choose between two individuals that differ in their attentive state towards the subject to receive a reward. Subjects can either avoid being observed by choosing the non-attentive person (competitive context: Flombaum and Santos 2005;Sandel et al 2011) or the person paying them attention (communicative context: Povinelli and Eddy 1996;Gácsi et al 2004;Bulloch et al 2008;Botting et al 2011;Bania and Stromberg 2013;Nawroth et al 2013a)expecting to receive a food reward with less delay. The second is a food-requesting paradigm in which the subject faces a human experimenter who engages in different attentive states before a reward is delivered after some delay (Kaminski et al 2004;Hattori et al 2007;Tempelmann et al 2011;Maille et al 2012;Bourjade et al 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Goats that stare at men’: dwarf goats alter their behaviour in response to human head orientation, but do not spontaneously use head direction as a cue in a food-related context

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, comparative research on the mechanisms and species-specific adaptive values of attributing attentive states and using communicative cues has gained increased interest, particularly in non-human primates, birds, and dogs. Here, we investigate these phenomena in a farm animal species, the dwarf goat (Capra aegagrus hircus). In the first experiment, we investigated the effects of different human head and body orientations, as well as human experimenter presence/absence, on the behaviour of goats in a food-anticipating paradigm. Over a 30-s interval, the experimenter engaged in one of four different postures or behaviours (head and body towards the subject-'Control', head to the side, head and body away from the subject, or leaving the room) before delivering a reward. We found that the level of subjects' active anticipatory behaviour was highest in the control condition and decreased with a decreasing level of attention paid to the subject by the experimenter. Additionally, goats 'stared' (i.e. stood alert) at the experimental set-up for significantly more time when the experimenter was present but paid less attention to the subject ('Head' and 'Back' condition) than in the 'Control' and 'Out' conditions. In a second experiment, the experimenter provided different human-given cues that indicated the location of a hidden food reward in a two-way object choice task. Goats were able to use both 'Touch' and 'Point' cues to infer the correct location of the reward but did not perform above the level expected by chance in the 'Head only' condition. We conclude that goats are able to differentiate among different body postures of a human, including head orientation; however, despite their success at using multiple physical human cues, they fail to spontaneously use human head direction as a cue in a food-related context.

show abstract

The effect of body orientation on judgments of human visual attention in western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla).

Cited by 12 publications

References 28 publications

Red-capped mangabeys (Cercocebus torquatus) adapt their interspecific gestural communication to the recipient’s behaviour

Red-capped mangabeys (Cercocebus torquatus) adapt their interspecific gestural communication to the recipient’s behaviour

Are California Sea Lions (Zalophus californianus) Sensitive to the Attentional State of their Caretakers?

‘Goats that stare at men’: dwarf goats alter their behaviour in response to human head orientation, but do not spontaneously use head direction as a cue in a food-related context

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About