Animal Cognition

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 45–58 | Cite as

How do keas (Nestor notabilis) solve artificial-fruit problems with multiple locks?

  • Hiromitsu MiyataEmail author
  • Gyula K. Gajdon
  • Ludwig Huber
  • Kazuo Fujita
Original Paper


Keas, a species of parrots from New Zealand, are an interesting species for comparative studies of problem solving and cognition because they are known not only for efficient capacities for object manipulation but also for explorative and playful behaviors. To what extent are they efficient or explorative, and what cognitive abilities do they use? We examined how keas would solve several versions of artificial-fruit box problems having multiple locks. After training keas to remove a metal rod from over a Plexiglas lid that had to be opened, we exposed the birds to a variety of tasks having two or more locks. We also introduced a preview phase during which the keas had extended opportunity to look at the tasks before the experimenter allowed the birds to solve them, to examine whether the preview phase would facilitate the birds’ performance on the tasks. In a large number of tests, the keas showed a strong trend to solve the tasks with no positive effect of previewing the tasks. When the tasks became complex, however, the keas corrected inappropriate responses more quickly when they had had chance to preview the problems than when they had not. The results suggest that the keas primarily used explorative strategies in solving the lock problems but might have obtained some information about the tasks before starting to solve them. This may reflect a good compromise of keas’ trial-and-error tendency and their good cognitive ability that result from a selection pressure they have faced in their natural habitat.


Keas Problem solving Artificial fruit Locks Avian cognitive processing 



This study was supported by the Research Fellowship of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) for Young Scientists to Hiromitsu Miyata, the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Grant P19087-B17 (to Ludwig Huber), the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research Nos. 17300085 and 20220004 from JSPS to Kazuo Fujita, and by the Japan Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport, Science, and Technology (MEXT) Global COE Program, D-07, to Kyoto University. The experiments adhered to the Austrian law of animal keeping and research. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Adams-Curtis L, Fragaszy DM (1995) Influence of a skilled model of the behavior of conspecific observers in tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Am J Primatol 37:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auersperg AMI, Gajdon GK, Huber L (2009) Kea (Nestor notabilis) consider spatial relationships between objects in the support problem. Biol Lett 5:455–458CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Biro D, Matsuzawa T (1999) Numerical ordering in a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes): planning, executing, and monitoring. J Comp Psychol 113:178–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brejaart R (1988) Diet and feeding behaviour of the kea (Nestor notabilis). Dissertation, Lincoln UniversityGoogle Scholar
  5. Chappell J, Kacelnik A (2002) Tool selectivity in a non-primate, the New Caledonian crow (Corvus moneduloides). Anim Cogn 5:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chittka L, Niven J (2009) Are bigger brains better? Curr Biol 19:R995–R1008CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark CMH (1970) Observations on population, movements and food of the kea (Nestor notabilis). Notornis 17:105–114Google Scholar
  8. Correia SPC, Dickinson A, Clayton NS (2007) Western scrub-jays (Aphelocoma Californica) anticipate future needs independently of their current motivational state. Curr Biol 17:856–861CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Diamond J, Bond AB (1999) Kea, bird of paradox. The evolution and behavior of a New Zealand parrot. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  10. Diamond J, Bond AB (2003) A comparative analysis of social play in birds. Behaviour 140:1091–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diamond J, Bond AB (2004) Social Play in Kaka (Nestor meridionalis) with comparisons to Kea (Nestor notabilis). Behaviour 141:777–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunbar RIM, McAdam MR, O’Connell S (2005) Mental rehearsal in great apes (Pan troglodytes and Pongo pygmaeus) and children. Behav Process 69:323–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Emery NJ, Clayton NS (2001) Effects of experience and social context on prospective caching strategies in scrub jays. Nature 414:443–446CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Emery NJ, Clayton NS (2004) Comparing the complex cognition of birds and primates. In: Rogers LJ, Kaplan GT (eds) Comparative vertebrate cognition: are primates superior to non-primates? Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp 3–55Google Scholar
  15. Fragaszy D, Johnson-Pynn E, Hirsh E, Brakke K (2003) Strategic navigation of two-dimensional alley mazes: comparing capuchin monkeys and chimpanzees. Anim Cogn 6:149–160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gajdon GK, Fijn N, Huber L (2004) Testing social learning in a wild mountain parrot, the kea (Nestor notabilis). Learn Behav 32:62–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gajdon GK, Fijn N, Huber L (2006) Limited spread of innovation in a wild parrot, the kea (Nestor notabilis). Anim Cogn 9:173–181CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Huber L, Gajon GK (2006) Technical intelligence in animals: the kea model. Anim Cogn 9:295–305CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Huber L, Rechberger S, Taborsky M (2001) Social learning affects object exploration and manipulation in keas, Nestor notabilis. Anim Behav 62:945–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huber L, Gajdon GK, Federspiel I, Wedernich D (2008) Cooperation in keas: social and cognitive factors. In: Itakura S, Fujita K (eds) Origins of the social mind: evolutionary and developmental views. Springer, Tokyo, pp 97–117Google Scholar
  21. Iversen IH, Matsuzawa T (2003) Development of interception of moving targets by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in an automated task. Anim Cogn 6:169–183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Iwaniuk AN, Dean KM, Nelson JE (2005) Interspecific allometry of the brain and brain regions in parrots (Psittaciformes): comparisons with other birds and primates. Brain Behav Evol 65:40–59CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kawai N, Matsuzawa T (2000) Numerical memory span in a chimpanzee. Nature 403:39–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kubat S (1992) Die Rolle von Neuigkeit, Andersartigkeit, und sozialer Struktur für Die Exploration von Objekten beim Kea (Nestor notabilis). Dissertation, University of ViennaGoogle Scholar
  25. Miyata H, Fujita K (2008) Pigeons (Columba livia) plan future moves on computerized maze tasks. Anim Cogn 11:505–516CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Miyata H, Fujita K (2010) Route selection by pigeons (Columba livia) on “traveling salesperson” navigation tasks presented on the LCD screen. J Comp Psychol (in press)Google Scholar
  27. Miyata H, Ushitani T, Adachi I, Fujita K (2006) Performance of pigeons (Columba livia) on maze problems presented on the LCD screen: In search for preplanning ability in an avian species. J Comp Psychol 120:358–366CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Miyata H, Itakura S, Fujita K (2009) Planning in human children (Homo sapiens) assessed by maze problems on the touch screen. J Comp Psychol 123:69–78CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Mulcahy NJ, Call J (2006) Apes save tools for future use. Science 312:1038–1040CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Mushiake H, Saito N, Sakamoto K, Sato Y, Tanji J (2001) Visually based path planning by Japanese monkeys. Cogn Brain Res 11:165–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mushiake H, Saito N, Sakamoto K, Itoyama Y, Tanji J (2006) Activity in the prefrontal cortex reflects multiple steps of future events in action plans. Neuron 50:631–641CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Raby CR, Alexis DM, Dickinson A, Clayton NS (2007) Planning for the future by western scrub-jays. Nature 445:919–921CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Rensch B (1973) Play and art in monkeys and apes. In: Jr Menzel EW (ed) Symposium of the 4th international congress of primatology, vol. 1: precultural primate behavior. Karger, Basel, Switzerland, pp 102–103Google Scholar
  34. Ritzmeier M (1995) The influence on hunger and low predation diet on exploration in keas (Nestor notabilis). Dissertation, Konrad Lorenz Institute for Ethology, University of ViennaGoogle Scholar
  35. Roberts WA (2002) Are animals stuck in time? Psychol Bull 128:473–489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Schloegl C, Dierks A, Gajdon GK, Huber L, Kotrschal K, Bugnyar T (2009) What you see is what you get? Exclusion performances in ravens and keas. PLoS ONE 4:e6368. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006368 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Shima K, Isoda M, Mushiake H, Tanji J (2007) Categorization of behavioural sequences in the prefrontal cortex. Nature 445:315–318CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Suddendorf T (2006) Foresight and evolution of the human mind. Science 312:1006–1007CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Temple P (1996) The book of the kea. Hodder Moa Beckett, AucklandGoogle Scholar
  40. 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 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hiromitsu Miyata
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Gyula K. Gajdon
    • 3
    • 4
  • Ludwig Huber
    • 3
  • Kazuo Fujita
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyKyoto UniversitySakyo-kuJapan
  2. 2.Japan Society for the Promotion of ScienceChiyoda-kuJapan
  3. 3.Department of Cognitive BiologyUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  4. 4.Konrad Lorenz Institute for EthologyAustrian Academy of SciencesViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations