Animal Cognition

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 225–231 | Cite as

Non-tool-using rooks, Corvus frugilegus, solve the trap-tube problem

  • Sabine Tebbich
  • Amanda M. Seed
  • Nathan J. Emery
  • Nicola S. Clayton
Original Paper


The trap-tube problem is used to assess whether an individual is able to foresee the outcome of its actions. To solve the task, an animal must use a tool to push a piece of food out of a tube, which has a trap along its length. An animal may learn to avoid the trap through a rule based on associative processes, e.g. using the distance of trap or food as a cue, or by understanding relations between cause and effect. This task has been used to test physical cognition in a number of tool-using species, but never a non-tool-user. We developed an experimental design that enabled us to test non-tool-using rooks, Corvus frugilegus. Our modification of the task removed the cognitive requirements of active tool use but still allowed us to test whether rooks can solve the trap-tube problem, and if so how. Additionally, we developed two new control tasks to determine whether rooks were able to transfer knowledge to similar, but novel problems, thus revealing more about the mechanisms involved in solving the task. We found that three out of seven rooks solved the modified trap-tube problem task, showing that the ability to solve the trap-tube problem is not restricted to tool-using animals. We found no evidence that the birds solved the task using an understanding of its causal properties, given that none of the birds passed the novel transfer tasks.


Corvus frugilegus Trap-tube task Tool-use Physical cognition Corvids 



S. Tebbich was supported by a Marie Curie Fellowship of the European Union under Contract No. HPMF-CT-2002–01599. A. Seed was supported by a BBSRC Postgraduate Studentship. N. Emery was supported by a Royal Society University Research Fellowship. This work was funded by the BBSRC, the Royal Society and the University of Cambridge. We thank R. Mundry for statistical advice and C. Teufel for conducting the Monte Carlo simulation, R. McCarthy and P. Meidl for help with collecting the birds, S. de Kort and K. Kluck for help with hand rearing, I. Millar for constructing the tubes, C. Donovan for bird care and the editor and anonymous reviewers for their comments on a earlier version of the manuscript. The rook nestlings were collected under N. Clayton’s English Nature Licence 20021292. This work adhered to University of Cambridge and UK Home Office regulations on animal husbandry and welfare.


  1. Adams DC, Anthony CD (1996) Using randomisation techniques to analyse behavioural data. Anim Behav 51:733–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck B (1980) Animal tool behavior: the use and manufacture of tools by animals. In: Garland series in ethology. Garland STPM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Byrne RW (1995) The thinking ape: evolutionary origins of intelligence. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Chappell J (2006) Avian cognition: understanding tool use. Curr Biol 16:244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chappell J, Kacelnik A (2002) Tool selectivity in a non-primate, the New Caledonian crow (Corvus moneduloides). Anim Cogn 5:71–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chappell J, Kacelnik A (2004) Selection of tool diameter by New Caledonian crows Corvus moneduloides. Anim Cogn 7:121–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cramp S, Perrins CM (1995) Handbook of the birds of Europe the Middle East and North Africa. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Emery NJ, Clayton NS (2004) The mentality of crows: convergent evolution of intelligence in corvids and apes. Science 306:1903–1907PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Emery NJ, Seed AM, von Bayern AMP, Clayton NS (in press) Cognitive adaptations, neural mechanisms and the evolution of social bonding in birds. Phil Trans Roy Soc Lond BGoogle Scholar
  10. Funk MS (2002) Problem solving skills in young yellow-crowned parakeets (Cyanoramphus auriceps). Anim Cogn 5(3):167–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gopnik A, Schulz L (2004) Mechanisms of theory formation in young children. Trends Cogn Sci 8:371–377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hauser MD (1997) Artifactual kinds and functional design features: what a primate understands without language. Cognition 64(3):285–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hauser M, Krali J, Botto-Mahan C (1999) Problem solving and functional design features: experiments on cotton-top tamarins, Saguinus oedipus oedipuss. Anim Behav 57:565–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hauser M, Pearson H, Seelig D (2002) Ontogeny of tool use in cottontop tamarins, Saguinus oedipus: innate recognition of functionally relevant features. Anim Behav 64:299–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heinrich B (2000) A tiny, brainy bird. Nat Hist 109(1):8–8Google Scholar
  16. Helme A, Call J, Clayton NS, Emery NJ (2006a) What do bonobos (Pan paniscus) understand about physical contact? J Comp Psychol 120(3):294–302Google Scholar
  17. Helme A, Clayton NS, Emery NJ (2006b) What do rooks (Corvus frugilegus) understand about physical contact? J Comp Psychol 120(3):288–293Google Scholar
  18. Humphrey NK (1976) The social function of intellect. In: Bateson PPG, Hinde RA(eds) Growing points in ethology. Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK, pp 303–317Google Scholar
  19. Hunt GR, Gray RD (2002) Species-wide manufacture of stick-type tools by New Caledonian crows. Emu 102:349–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hunt GR, Gray RD (2004) Direct observations of pandanus-tool manufacture and use by a New Caledonian crow (Corvus moneduloides). Anim Cogn 7:114–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kacelnik A, Chappell J, Kenward B, Weir AAS (2006) Cognitive adaptations for tool-related behaviour in New Caledonian crows. In: Wasserman EA, Zentall TR (eds) Comparative cognition: experimental explorations of animal intelligence. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Lefebvre L, Nicolakakis N, Boire D (2002) Tools and brains in birds. Behaviour 139:939–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Limongelli L, Boysen ST, Visalberghi E (1995) Comprehension of cause–effect relations in a tool-using task by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J Comp Psychol 109:18–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Manly BFJ (1997) Randomization, Bootstrap and Monte Carlo methods in biology. Chapman & Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Mulcahy NJ, Call J (2006) How great apes perform on a modified trap-tube task. Anim Cogn 9:193–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Parker ST, Gibson KR (1977) Object manipulation, tool use and sensorimotor intelligence as feeding adaptations in Cebus monkeys and great apes. J Hum Evol 6:623–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Povinelli DJ (2000) Folk physics for apes: a chimpanzee’s theory of how the world works. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Santos LR, Pearson HM, Spaepen GM, Tsao F, Hauser MD (2006) Probing the limits of tool competence: experiments with two non-tool-using species (Cercopithecus aethiops and Saguinus oedipus). Anim Cogn 9:94–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Seed AM, Tebbich S, Emery NJ, Clayton NS (2006) Investigating physical cognition in rooks (Corvus frugilegus). Curr Biol 16:697–701PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Seibt U, Wickler W (2006) Individuality in problem solving: string pulling in two Carduelis species (Aves: Passeriformes). Ethology 112(5):493–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Silva FJ, Page DM, Silva KM (2005) Methodological–conceptual problems on the study of chimpanzees’ folk physics: how studies with adult humans can help. Learn Behav 33:47–58PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Spaulding B, Hauser M (2005) What experience is required for acquiring tool competence? Experiment with two callitrichids. Anim Behav 70:517–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sterelny K (2003) Thought in a hostile world: the evolution of human cognition. Blackwell, NewYorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Tebbich S, Bshary R (2004) Cognitive abilities related to tool use in the woodpecker finch, Cactospiza pallida. Anim Behav 67:689–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tebbich S, Taborsky M, Fessl B, Dvorak M (2002) The ecology of tool-use in the woodpecker finch (Cactospiza pallida). Ecol Lett 5:656–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tomasello M, Call J (1997) Primate cognition. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Visalberghi E, Limongelli L (1994) Lack of comprehension of cause–effect relations in tool-using capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). J Comp Psychol 108:15–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Visalberghi E, Tomasello M (1998) Primate causal understanding in the physical and psychological domains. Behav Process 42:189–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Visalberghi E, Trinca L (1989) Tool use in the capuchin monkeys: distinguishing between performing and understanding. Primates 30:511–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weir AAS, Chappell J, Kacelnik A (2002) Shaping of hooks in new Caledonian crows. Science 297:981–981PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Werdenich D, Huber L (2006) A case of quick problem solving in birds: string pulling in keas, Nestor notabilis. Anim Behav 71:855–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sabine Tebbich
    • 1
  • Amanda M. Seed
    • 1
  • Nathan J. Emery
    • 2
  • Nicola S. Clayton
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Experimental PsychologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Sub-Department of Animal BehaviourUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations