Animal Cognition

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 121–133

What cognitive strategies do orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) use to solve a trial-unique puzzle-tube task incorporating multiple obstacles?

  • Emma C. Tecwyn
  • Susannah K. S. Thorpe
  • Jackie Chappell
Original Paper

DOI: 10.1007/s10071-011-0438-x

Cite this article as:
Tecwyn, E.C., Thorpe, S.K.S. & Chappell, J. Anim Cogn (2012) 15: 121. doi:10.1007/s10071-011-0438-x

Abstract

Apparently sophisticated behaviour during problem-solving is often the product of simple underlying mechanisms, such as associative learning or the use of procedural rules. These and other more parsimonious explanations need to be eliminated before higher-level cognitive processes such as causal reasoning or planning can be inferred. We presented three Bornean orangutans with 64 trial-unique configurations of a puzzle-tube to investigate whether they were able to consider multiple obstacles in two alternative paths, and subsequently choose the correct direction in which to move a reward in order to retrieve it. We were particularly interested in how subjects attempted to solve the task, namely which behavioural strategies they could have been using, as this is how we may begin to elucidate the cognitive mechanisms underpinning their choices. To explore this, we simulated performance outcomes across the 64 trials for various procedural rules and rule combinations that subjects may have been using based on the configuration of different obstacles. Two of the three subjects solved the task, suggesting that they were able to consider at least some of the obstacles in the puzzle-tube before executing action to retrieve the reward. This is impressive compared with the past performances of great apes on similar, arguably less complex tasks. Successful subjects may have been using a heuristic rule combination based on what they deemed to be the most relevant cue (the configuration of the puzzle-tube ends), which may be a cognitively economical strategy.

Keywords

OrangutanGreat apeProblem-solvingPlanningCognitive strategiesTrap-tube

Supplementary material

View video

Supplementary material 1 (MPG 2244 kb)

View video

Supplementary material 2 (MPG 4840 kb)

View video

Supplementary material 3 (MPG 8132 kb)

View video

Supplementary material 4 (MPG 3522 kb)

10071_2011_438_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (12 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (PDF 12 kb)
10071_2011_438_MOESM6_ESM.pdf (60 kb)
Supplementary material 6 (PDF 60 kb)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emma C. Tecwyn
    • 1
  • Susannah K. S. Thorpe
    • 1
  • Jackie Chappell
    • 1
  1. 1.School of BiosciencesUniversity of BirminghamEdgbaston, BirminghamUK