What do bonobos (Pan paniscus) understand about physical contact?

Helme, Anne; Call, Josep; Clayton, Nicola S.; Emery, Nathan J.

doi:10.1037/0735-7036.120.3.294

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, an understanding of means-end relationships is best shown by the demonstration of insightful behavior to solve a novel task on the first trial (Osthaus, Lea, & Slater, 2005). Helme, Call, Clayton, & Emery, 2006;Schuck-Paim, Borsari, & Ottoni, 2009). Helme, Call, Clayton, & Emery, 2006;Schuck-Paim, Borsari, & Ottoni, 2009).…”

Section: Means-end Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

The World from a Dog’s Point of View

Bensky

Gosling²,

Sinn

2013

Advances in the Study of Behavior

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Means-end Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

The World from a Dog’s Point of View

Bensky

Gosling²,

Sinn

2013

Advances in the Study of Behavior

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…tested rooks and bonobos on a task in which a disc attached to a stick needed to be pulled into contact with a food reward in order to get it out of a tube. Both rooks and bonobos learned to solve this task, and transfer tasks revealed that they did so by learning rules based on the relative length of the stick at either end, rather than using information about contact (Helme et al. 2006a,b).…”

Section: Representation and Algorithmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intelligence in Corvids and Apes: A Case of Convergent Evolution?

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intelligence is suggested to have evolved in primates in response to complexities in the environment faced by their ancestors. Corvids, a large‐brained group of birds, have been suggested to have undergone a convergent evolution of intelligence [Emery & Clayton (2004) Science, Vol. 306, pp. 1903–1907]. Here we review evidence for the proposal from both ultimate and proximate perspectives. While we show that many of the proposed hypotheses for the evolutionary origin of great ape intelligence also apply to corvids, further study is needed to reveal the selective pressures that resulted in the evolution of intelligent behaviour in both corvids and apes. For comparative proximate analyses we emphasize the need to be explicit about the level of analysis to reveal the type of convergence that has taken place. Although there is evidence that corvids and apes solve social and physical problems with similar speed and flexibility, there is a great deal more to be learned about the representations and algorithms underpinning these computations in both groups. We discuss recent comparative work that has addressed proximate questions at this level, and suggest directions for future research.

show abstract

“…Tool using is an indirect means of achieving a goal by causally relating objects to one another (Tomasello and Call 1997 ). Although a variety of animals are capable of using tools to solve problems (e.g., Beck 1980 ; Natale et al 1988 ; Tomasello and Call 1997 ; Chappell and Kacelnik 2002 ; Tebbich and Bshary 2004 ; Helme et al 2006 ), their degree of understanding of the problem features (tools, obstacles and rewards) and the causal relationships between those features is still an unresolved question. One task that has received substantial research attention is the trap-tube task (Visalberghi and Limongelli 1994 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tubes, tables and traps: great apes solve two functionally equivalent trap tasks but show no evidence of transfer across tasks

2008

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies on tool using have shown that presenting subjects with certain modiWcations in the experimental setup can substantially improve their performance. However, procedural modiWcations (e.g. trap table task) may not only remove task constraints but also simplify the problem conceptually. The goal of this study was to design a variation of the trap-table that was functionally equivalent to the trap-tube task. In this new task, the subjects had to decide where to insert the tool and in which direction the reward should be pushed. We also administered a trap-tube task that allowed animals to push or rake the reward with the tool to compare the subjects' performance on both tasks. We used a larger sample of subjects than in previous studies and from all the four species of great apes (Gorilla gorilla, Pan troglodytes, Pan paniscus, and Pongo pygmaeus). The results showed that apes performed better in the trap-platform task than in the trap-tube task. Subjects solved the tube task faster than in previous studies and they also preferred to rake in rather than to push the reward out. There was no correlation in the level of performance between both tasks, and no indication of interspecies diVerences. These data are consistent with the idea that apes may possess some speciWc causal knowledge of traps but may lack the ability to establish analogical relations between functional equivalent tasks.

show abstract

What do bonobos (Pan paniscus) understand about physical contact?

Cited by 16 publications

References 33 publications

The World from a Dog’s Point of View

The World from a Dog’s Point of View

Intelligence in Corvids and Apes: A Case of Convergent Evolution?

Tubes, tables and traps: great apes solve two functionally equivalent trap tasks but show no evidence of transfer across tasks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About