Animal Cognition

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 236–246 | Cite as

Means-means-end tool choice in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus): finding the limits on primates’ knowledge of tools

  • Laurie R. SantosEmail author
  • Alexandra Rosati
  • Catherine Sproul
  • Bailey Spaulding
  • Marc D. Hauser
Original Article


Most studies of animal tool use require subjects to use one object to gain access to a food reward. In many real world situations, however, animals perform more than one action in sequence to achieve their goals. Of theoretical interest is whether animals have the cognitive capacity to recognize the relationship between consecutive action sequences in which there may be one overall goal and several subgoals. Here we ask if cotton-top tamarins, a species that in captivity uses tools to solve means-end problems, can go one step further and use a sequence of tools (means) to obtain food (end). We first trained subjects to use a pulling tool to obtain a food reward. After this initial training, subjects were presented with problems in which one tool had to be used in combination with a second in order to obtain food. Subjects showed great difficulty when two tools were required to obtain the food reward. Although subjects attended to the connection between the tool and food reward, they ignored the physical connection between the two tools. After training on a two-tool problem, we presented subjects with a series of transfer tests to explore if they would generalize to new types of connections between the tools. Subjects readily transferred to new connections. Our results therefore provide the first evidence to date that tamarins can learn to solve problems involving two tools, but that they do so only with sufficient training.


Training Condition Food Reward Wild Chimpanzee Physical Connection Single Tool 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors wish to thank Sebastien Fournier and Daniel Schaffer for their help running these studies. This research was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (USA) of Harvard University (Animal Research Protocol no. 92-16, approved 11/13/02). All of this research conforms to federal guidelines for use of animals in research. L.R.S. was supported by an NSF Predoctoral Fellowship and Yale University. M.D.H. was supported by the NSF (SBR-9357976), the NEPRC (PHS-P51RR00168-37) and Harvard University


  1. Anderson R, Henneman MC (1994) Solutions to a tool-use problem in a pair of Cebus apella. Mammalia 58:351–361Google Scholar
  2. Boesch C, Boesch H (1990) Tool use and tool making in wild chimpanzees. Folia Primatol 54:86–99Google Scholar
  3. Brewer SM, McGrew WC (1990) Chimpanzee use of a tool-set to get honey. Folia Primatol 54:100–104Google Scholar
  4. Byrne RW (1999) Object manipulation and skill organization in the complex food preparation of mountain gorillas. In: Parker ST, Mitchell RW, Miles HL (eds) The mentalities of gorillas and orangutans: comparative perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 147–159Google Scholar
  5. Byrne RW, Corp N, Byrne JME (2001) Estimating the complexity of animal behaviour: how mountain gorillas eat thistles. Behaviour 138:525–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corp N, Byrne RW (2002) Leaf processing by wild chimpanzees: physically defended leaves reveal complex manual skills. Ethology 108:673–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Furlong EE, Bulloch MJ, Boose KJ, Boysen ST (2004) Raking it in: chimpanzees recognize the mechanical properties of tools. 11th Annual International Conference on Comparative Cognition, Melbourne, Fla, 25 March 2004Google Scholar
  8. Hauser MD (1997) Artifactual kinds and functional design features: what a primate understands without language. Cognition 64:285–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hauser MD, Kralik J, Botto-Mahan C (1999) Problem solving and functional design features: experiments on cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus). Anim Behav 57:565–582CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hauser MD, Pearson HM, Seelig D (2002a) Ontogeny of tool-use in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus): innate recognition of functionally relevant features. Anim Behav 64:299–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hauser MD, Santos LR (2005) The evolutionary ancestry of our knowledge of tools: from percepts to concepts. In: Margolis E, Laurence S (eds) Creations of the mind. Oxford University Press, Oxford (in press)Google Scholar
  12. Hauser MD, Santos LR, Spaepen GM, Pearson HE (2002b) Problem solving, inhibition and domain-specific experience: experiments on cottontop tamarins, Saguinus oedipus. Anim Behav 64:387–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hihara S, Obayashi S, Tanaka M, Iriki A (2003) Rapid learning of sequential tool use by macaque monkeys. Physiol Behav 78:427–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Köhler W (1925/1959) The mentality of apes. Vintage, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Matsuzawa T (1991) Nesting cups and metatools in chimpanzees. Behav Brain Sci 14:570–571Google Scholar
  16. Matsuzawa T (1994) Field experiments on the stone tool by chimpanzees in the wild. In: Wrangham RW, McGrew WC, de Waal F, Heltne PG (eds) Chimpanzee cultures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 196–209Google Scholar
  17. Matsuzawa T (1996) Chimpanzee intelligence in nature and captivity: isomorphism of symbol-use and tool-use. In: McGrew WC, Marchant LF, Nishida T (eds) Great ape societies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 196–212Google Scholar
  18. Matsuzawa T (2001) Primate foundations of human intelligence: a view of tool use in non-human primates and fossil hominids. In: Matzusawa T (ed) Primate origins of human cognition and behavior. Springer, Tokyo Berlin Heidelberg, pp 3–25Google Scholar
  19. Parker ST, Poti P (1990) The role of innate motor patterns in ontogenetic and experiential development of intelligent use of sticks in Cebus monkeys. In: Parker ST, Gibson KR (eds) “Language” and intelligence in monkeys and apes: comparative development perspectives. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 219–243Google Scholar
  20. Povinelli DJ (2000) Folk physics for apes: the chimpanzee’s theory of how the world works. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Santos LR (2004) Core knowledges: a dissociation between spatiotemporal knowledge and contact-mechanics in a non-human primate? Dev Sci 7:167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Santos LR, Hauser MD (2002) Dissociations between implicit knowledge and search behavior in cotton-top tamarins. Dev Sci 5:F1–F7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Santos LR, Miller CT, Hauser MD (2003) Representing tools: how two non-human primate species distinguish between the functionally relevant and irrelevant features of a tool. Anim Cogn 6:269–281CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Stoinski TS, Beck BB (2001) Spontaneous tool use in captive, free-ranging golden lion tamarins (Leontopithecus rosalia rosalia). Primates 42:319–326Google Scholar
  25. Tomasello M, Call J (1997) Primate cognition. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Visalberghi E, Trinca L (1989) Tool use in capuchin monkeys: distinguishing between performance and understanding. Primates 30:511–521Google Scholar
  27. Whiten A, Goodall J, McGrew WC, Nishida T, Reynolds V, Sugiyama Y, Tutin CEG, Wrangham RW, Boesch C (1999) Cultures in chimpanzees. Nature 399:682–685CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Yerkes R, Yerkes A (1929) The great apes. Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laurie R. Santos
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alexandra Rosati
    • 2
  • Catherine Sproul
    • 2
  • Bailey Spaulding
    • 2
  • Marc D. Hauser
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations