Animal Cognition

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 1–10 | Cite as

Use of experimenter-given cues by African gray parrots (Psittacus erithacus)

  • Nicolas Giret
  • Ádam Miklósi
  • Michel Kreutzer
  • Dalila Bovet
Original Paper

Abstract

One advantage of living in a social group is the opportunity to use information provided by other individuals. Social information can be based on cues provided by a conspecific or even by a heterospecific individual (e.g., gaze direction, vocalizations, pointing gestures). Although the use of human gaze and gestures has been extensively studied in primates, and is increasingly studied in other mammals, there is no documentation of birds using these cues in a cooperative context. In this study, we tested the ability of three African gray parrots to use different human cues (pointing and/or gazing) in an object-choice task. We found that one subject spontaneously used the most salient pointing gesture (looking and steady pointing with hand at about 20 cm from the baited box). The two others were also able to use this cue after 15 trials. None of the parrots spontaneously used the steady gaze cues (combined head and eye orientation), but one learned to do so effectively after only 15 trials when the distance between the head and the baited box was about 1 m. However, none of the parrots were able to use the momentary pointing nor the distal pointing and gazing cues. These results are discussed in terms of sensitivity to joint attention as a prerequisite to understand pointing gestures as it is to the referential use of labels.

Keywords

African gray parrots (Psittacus erithacusGaze Heterospecific communication Object-choice Pointing Referential signals 

References

  1. Anderson JR (1998) Social stimuli and social rewards in primate learning and cognition. Behav Processes 42:159–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson JR, Montant M, Schmitt D (1996) Rhesus monkeys fail to use gaze direction as an experimenter-given cue in an object-choice task. Behav Processes 37:47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson JR, Sallaberry P, Barbier H (1995) Use of experimenter-given cues during object-choice tasks by capuchin monkeys. Anim Behav 49:201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldwin DA (1991) Infants’ contribution to the achievement of joint reference. Child Dev 62:875–890PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barth J, Reaux JE, Povinelli DJ (2005) Chimpanzees’ (Pan troglodytes) use of gaze cues in object-choice tasks: different methods yield different results. Anim Cogn 8:84–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Behne T, Carpenter M, Tomasello M (2005) One-year-olds comprehend the communicative intentions behind gestures in a hiding game. Dev Sci 8:492–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bradbury JW (2003) Vocal communication in wild parrots. In: de Waal FBM, Tyack PL (eds) Animal social complexity: intelligence culture and individualized societies. Harvard Press, Cambridge, pp 293–316Google Scholar
  8. Bugnyar T, Stöwe M, Bernd H (2004) Ravens, Corvus corax, follow gaze direction of humans around obstacles. Proc Biol Sci 271:1331–1336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Call J, Hare BA, Tomasello M (1998) Chimpanzee gaze following in an object-choice task. Anim Cogn 1:89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Call J, Tomasello M (1994) Production and comprehension of referential pointing by Orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). J Comp Psychol 108:307–317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Danchin E, Giraldeau L-A, Valone TJ, Wagner RH (2004) Public information: from nosy neighbors to cultural evolution. Science 305:487–491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dominey PF, Dodane C (2004) Indeterminacy in language acquisition: the role of child directed speech and joint attention. J Neurolinguistics 17:121–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Emery NJ, Clayton DH (2001) Effects of experience and social context on prospective caching strategies by scrub jays. Nature 416:443–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Emery NJ, Dally JM, Clayton NS (2004) Western scrub-jays (Aphelocoma californica) use cognitive strategies to protect their caches from thieving conspecifics. Anim Cogn 7:37–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Evans CS (1997) Referential signals. Perspect Ethol 12:99–143Google Scholar
  16. Farroni T, Mansfield EM, Lai C, Johnson MH (2003) Infants perceiving and acting on the eyes: tests of an evolutionary hypothesis. J Exp Child Psychol 85:199–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gómez J-C (2005) Species comparative studies and cognitive development. Trends Cogn Sci (Regul Ed) 9:118–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hare B, Brown M, Williamson C, Tomasello M (2002) The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science 298:1634–1636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hare B, Plyusnina I, Ignacio N, Schepina O, Stepika A, Wrangham R, Trut L (2005) Social cognitive evolution in captive foxes is a correlated by-product of experimental domestication. Curr Biol 15:226–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hare B, Tomasello M (1999) Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) use human and conspecific social cues to locate hidden food. J Comp Psychol 113:173–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Itakura S, Agnetta B, Hare B, Tomasello M (1999) Chimpanzee use of human and conspecific social cues to locate hidden food. Dev Sci 2:448–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Itakura S, Tanaka M (1998) Use of experimenter-given cues during object-choice tasks by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), an orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus), and human infants (Homo sapiens). J Comp Psychol 112:119–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaminski J, Riedel J, Call J, Tomasello M (2005) Domestic goats, Capra hircus, follow gaze direction and use social cues in an object choice task. Anim Behav 69:11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maros K, Gácsi M, Miklósi Á (2008) Comprehension of human pointing gestures in horses (Equus caballus). Anim Cogn. doi:10.1007/s10071-008-0136-5
  25. McGregor PK, Dabelsteen T (1996) Communication networks. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller EH (eds) Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds. Ithaca, New York, pp 409–425Google Scholar
  26. McKinley J, Sambrook TD (2000) Use of human-given cues by domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and horses (Equus caballus). Anim Cogn 3:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miklósi Á, Kubinyi E, Topál J, Gácsi M, Virányi Z, Csányi V (2003) A simple reason for a big difference: wolves do not look back at humans, but dogs do. Curr Biol 13:763–766PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miklósi Á, Polgárdi R, Topál J, Csányi V (1998) Use of experimenter-given cues in dogs. Anim Cogn 1:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miklósi Á, Soproni K (2006) A comparative analysis of animals’ understanding of the human pointing gesture. Anim Cogn 9:81–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Peignot P, Anderson JR (1999) Use of experimenter-given manual and facial cues by gorillas (Gorilla gorilla) in an object-choice task. J Comp Psychol 113:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pepperberg IM (1999) The Alex studies: cognitive and communicative abilities of grey parrots. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. Pepperberg IM (2006) Cognitive and communicative abilities of grey parrots. Appl Anim Behav Sci 100:77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pepperberg IM, McLaughlin MA (1996) Effect of avian-human joint attention on allospecific vocal learning by grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus). J Comp Psychol 110:286–297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Povinelli DJ, Reaux JE, Bierschwale DT, Allain AD, Simon BB (1997) Exploitation of pointing as a referential gesture in young children, but not adolescent chimpanzees. Cogn Dev 12:423–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pratx I (2004) Le perroquet gris d’Afrique Psittacus erithacus. Pharmacy Thesis, Faculté des Sciences Pharmaceutiques, Toulouse III Paul Sabatier University, Toulouse, p 244Google Scholar
  36. Schloegl C, Kotrschal K, Bugnyar T (2008) Do common ravens (Corvus corax) rely on human or conspecific gaze cues to detect hidden food? Anim Cogn 11:231–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schmid R, Doherr MG, Steiger A (2006) The influence of the breeding method on the behaviour of adult African grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus). Appl Anim Behav Sci 98:293–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smitha B, Thakar J, Watve M (1999) Do bee eaters have theory of mind? Curr Sci 76:574–577Google Scholar
  39. Soproni K, Miklósi Á, Topál J, Csányi V (2001) Comprehension of human communicative signs in pet dogs (Canis familiaris). J Comp Psychol 115:122–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Soproni K, Miklósi Á, Topál J, Csányi V (2002) Dogs’ (Canis familiaris) responsiveness to human pointing gestures. J Comp Psychol 116:27–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tomasello M, Call J, Gluckman A (1997) Comprehension of novel communicative signs by apes and human children. Child Dev 68:1067–1080PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tomasello M, Call J, Hare B (1998) Five primate species follow the visual gaze of conspecifics. Anim Behav 55:1063–1069PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tomasello M, Hare B, Agnetta B (1999) Chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes, follow gaze direction geometrically. Anim Behav 58:769–777PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tschudin A, Call J, Dunbar RIM, Harris G, van der Elst C (2001) Comprehension of Signs by Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). J Comp Psychol 115:100–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vick S-J, Anderson JR (2003) Use of human visual attention cues by olive baboons (Papio anubis) in a competitive task. J Comp Psychol 117:209–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Virányi Z, Gácsi M, Kubinyi E, Topál J, Belényi B, Ujfalussy D, Miklósi Á (2008) Comprehension of human pointing gestures in young human-reared wolves (Canis lupus) and dogs (Canis familiaris). Anim Cogn. doi:10.1007/s10071-007-0127-y
  47. Watve M, Thakar J, Kale A, Puntambekar S, Shaikh I, Vaze K, Jog M, Paranjape S (2002) Bee-eaters (Merops orientalis) respond to what a predator can see. Anim Cogn 5:253–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yamashita C (1987) Field observations and comments on the Indigo Macaw (Anodorhynchus leari), a highly endangered species from northeastern Brazil. Wilson Bull 99:280–282Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicolas Giret
    • 1
  • Ádam Miklósi
    • 2
  • Michel Kreutzer
    • 1
  • Dalila Bovet
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire d’Ethologie et de Cognition ComparéesUniversité Paris X-NanterreNanterre cedexFrance
  2. 2.Department of EthologyEötvös UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations