Tool making cockatoos adjust the lengths but not the widths of their tools to function

Kock, Celeste de; O’Hara, Mark; Huber, Ludwig

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0205429

Cited by 18 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(56 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4 Manufactured strips of the Size Test of the three subjects that carved differently sized strips depending on previously experienced short or long templates (GLMMs; Kiwi: p < 0.01, Figaro & Konrad: p < 0.001) not only in relative but also in absolute length. The findings of the size test supplement previous results showing how Goffin's cockatoos adjust the lengths of straight cardboard strips relative to the varying (yet visible) distance of the of an out-of-reach food reward (Auersperg et al 2018) while saving effort in manufacture.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Object manufacture based on a memorized template: Goffin’s cockatoos attend to different model features

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although several nonhuman animals have the ability to recognize and match templates in computerized tasks, we know little about their ability to recall and then physically manufacture specific features of mental templates. Across three experiments, Goffin cockatoos (Cacatua goffiniana), a species that can use tools in captivity, were exposed to two pre-made template objects, varying in either colour, size (long or short) or shape (I or L-shaped), where only one template was rewarded. Birds were then given the opportunity to manufacture versions of these objects themselves. We found that all birds carved paper strips from the same colour material as the rewarded template, and half were also able to match the size of a template (long and short). This occurred despite the template being absent at test and birds being rewarded at random. However, we found no evidence that cockatoos could carve L-shaped pieces after learning that L-shaped templates were rewarded, though their manufactured strips were wider than in previous tests. Overall, our results show that Goffin cockatoos possess the ability to physically adjust at least the size dimension of manufactured objects relative to a mental template. This ability has previously only been shown in New Caledonian crows, where template matching was suggested as a potential mechanism allowing for the cumulative cultural transmission of tool designs. Our results show that within avian tool users, the ability to recreate a physical template from memory does not seem to be restricted to species that have cumulative tool cultures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Object manufacture based on a memorized template: Goffin’s cockatoos attend to different model features

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although parrots are often credited with being efficient tool users (Auersperg et al, 2018), the overall majority of such observations were done on captive individuals. Interestingly, Fayet et al (2020a) also mention that parrot may use objects for scratching their head or back.…”

Section: Behavioral Rarity As a Results Of Environmental Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Report Anecdotal Observations? A New Approach Based on a Lesson From “Puffin Tool Use”

Sándor

Miklósi

2020

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUNDThere has been a long history of anecdotal reports in the field of natural history and comparative (evolutionary) animal behavior. Although, at the time of writing there is an open call for researchers of animal behavior by one of the oldest journal of the field "BEHAVIOR" to report "anecdotal evidence of unique behavior" (Kret and Roth, 2020), nowadays we see a decreasing trend of reporting anecdotes in scientific journals (Ramsay and Teichroeb, 2019). We do not dispute the relevance of publishing rare and novel behaviors or events, as they can be important drivers for future research, but we would like to draw attention to the fact that these reports should follow some standards and authors should be careful in avoiding over-interpretations.An example of possible over-interpretation is a recently published article (Fayet et al., 2020a) that also received a lot of media hype (e.g., 79 news outlets at the time of writing; for more details see Altmetric, 2020). The authors reported on two separate occasions (one accidental field observation and one recorded on an 11 s long video) when two individuals of the Atlantic puffin (Fratercula arctica) were seen picking up or holding a stick in their beak, which then touched their body. These two cases were reported as an "Evidence of tool use in a seabird" (Fayet et al., 2020a).This publication was followed by at least three commentaries [Auersperg et al., 2020;Farrar, 2020;von Bayern et al., 2020; and for further discussion see also Recommendation of the Farrar (2020) commentary by Dechaume-Moncharmont (2020)] that provided partly supportive or alternative views on the original report. The present authors share some of the doubts presented earlier but in this contribution we use the above case as an example to point out the problems with such anecdotal observations in general, and suggest ways to improve the information exchange among researchers.

show abstract

“…Overall, the subjects in this task showed less, or possibly zero, functional understanding of their multi-stone constructions when compared to other parrots’ functional understanding of tools they can use in problem-solving tasks (Auersperg et al 2011 ; Auersperg, von Bayern, Gajdon et al 2011 , 2018 ; Auersperg et al, 2012 ; Laumer et al, 2017 ). As stated, the only individual that appeared to be using the stones in order to directly manipulate the position of the walnut was Captain, as he was the only one that would place the stones in the direction towards the walnut in the parallel tubes task.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Goffin’s cockatoos have been established as probable non-tool users in the wild (O’Hara et al, 2019 ; but see Osuna-Mascaró & Auersperg, 2018 ), but remarkably some individuals began to spontaneously innovate the manufacture and use of stick tools in captivity (Auersperg et al, 2012 ). Furthermore, these cockatoos appeared to show understanding of some of the complex properties of these tools that made them functional, such as making tools of the appropriate length (Auersperg et al, 2018 ) or adding hooks to their tools when necessary (Laumer et al, 2017 ). Because of these examples, it is interesting to expand tool-use tasks to other species across the parrot order.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovative problem solving in macaws

O'Neill

Rasyidi

Hastings³

et al. 2020

Learn Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behavioural innovations with tool-like objects in non-habitually tool-using species are thought to require complex physical understanding, but the underlying cognitive processes remain poorly understood. A few parrot species are capable of innovating tool-use and borderline tool-use behaviours. We tested this capacity in two species of macaw (Ara ambiguus, n = 9; Ara glaucogularis, n = 8) to investigate if they could solve a problem-solving task through manufacture of a multi-stone construction. Specifically, after having functional experience with a pre-inserted stick tool to push a reward out of a horizontal tube, the subjects were required to insert five stones consecutively from one side to perform the same function as the stick tool with the resulting multi-component construction. One Ara glaucogularis solved the task and innovated the stone construction after the experience with the stick tool. Two more subjects (one of each species) did so after having further functional experience of a single stone pushing a reward out of a shortened tube. These subjects were able to consistently solve the task, but often made errors, for example counter-productive stone insertions from the opposing end, even in some of the successful trials. Conversely, multiple trials without errors also suggested a strong goal direction. Their performance in the follow-up tasks was inconclusive since they sometimes inserted stones into un-baited or blocked ‘dummy tubes’, but this could have been an attention-deficit behaviour as subjects had not encountered these ‘dummy tubes’ before. Overall, the successful subjects’ performance was so erratic that it proved difficult to conclude whether they had functional understanding of their multi-stone constructions.

show abstract

Tool making cockatoos adjust the lengths but not the widths of their tools to function

Cited by 18 publications

References 29 publications

Object manufacture based on a memorized template: Goffin’s cockatoos attend to different model features

Object manufacture based on a memorized template: Goffin’s cockatoos attend to different model features

How to Report Anecdotal Observations? A New Approach Based on a Lesson From “Puffin Tool Use”

Innovative problem solving in macaws

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About