Animal Cognition

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 121–133 | Cite as

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

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

Orangutan Great ape Problem-solving Planning Cognitive strategies Trap-tube 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Apenheul Primate Park (Netherlands) for granting permission for scientific research and generously giving their time, support and valuable knowledge. Special thanks go to Rudy Berends, Leo Hulsker, Bianca Klein and Frank Rietkerk. We are also grateful to four anonymous reviewers whose comments contributed to the improvement of this manuscript. This study was funded by a Natural Environment Research Council studentship to E.C.T.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

The experiments reported here comply with the current laws of the country (Netherlands) in which they were performed.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MPG 2244 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (MPG 4840 kb)

Supplementary material 3 (MPG 8132 kb)

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)

References

  1. Bard KA (1995) Sensorimotor cognition in young feral orangutans (Pongo-Pygmaeus). Primates 36:297–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biro D, Matsuzawa T (1999) Numerical ordering in a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes): planning, executing, and monitoring. J Comp Psychol 113:178–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brewer SM, McGrew WC (1990) Chimpanzee use of a tool-set to get honey. Folia Primatol 54:100–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Byrne RW (1997) The technical intelligence hypothesis: an additional evolutionary stimulus to intelligence? In: Whiten A, Byrne RW (eds) Machiavellian intelligence II: extensions and evaluations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 289–311CrossRefGoogle 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. Cacchione T, Call J (2010) Intuitions about gravity and solidity in great apes: the tubes task. Dev Sci 13:320–330Google Scholar
  7. Carruthers P (1998) Natural theories of consciousness. Eur J Philos 6:203–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheke LD, Bird CD, Clayton NS (2011) Tool-use and instrumental learning in the Eurasian jay (Garrulus glandarius). Anim Cogn 14:441–455PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chevalier-Skolnikoff S, Galdikas BMF, Skolnikoff AZ (1982) The adaptive significance of higher intelligence in wild orang-utans: a preliminary report. J Hum Evol 11:639–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chittka L, Jensen K (2011) Animal cognition: concepts from apes to bees. Curr Biol 21:116–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Corp N, Byrne RW (2002) Leaf processing by wild chimpanzees: physically defended leaves reveal complex manual skills. Ethology 108:673–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crawley MJ (2007) The R book. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. D’Mello S, Franklin S (2011) A cognitive model’s view of animal cognition. Curr Zool 57:499–513Google Scholar
  14. Dunbar RIM, McAdam MR, O’Connell S (2005) Mental rehearsal in great apes (Pan troglodytes and Pongo pygmaeus) and children. Behav Proc 69:323–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Epstein R, Kirshnit CE, Lanza RP, Rubin LC (1984) ‘Insight’ in the pigeon: antecedents and determinants of an intelligent performance. Nature 308:61–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fedor A, Skollar G, Szerencsy N, Ujhelyi M (2008) Object permanence tests on gibbons (Hylobatidae). J Comp Psychol 122:403–417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fragaszy D, Johnson-Pynn J, Hirsh E, Brakke K (2003) Strategic navigation of two-dimensional alley mazes: comparing capuchin monkeys and chimpanzees. Anim Cogn 6:149–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fragaszy DM, Kennedy E, Murnane A, Menzel D, Brewer G, Johnson-Pynn J, Hopkins W (2009) Navigating two-dimensional mazes: chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and capuchins (Cebus apella sp.) profit from experience differently. Anim Cogn 12:491–504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Galdikas BMF (1982) Orang-utan tool-use at Tanjung Puting Reserve, Central Indonesian Borneo (Kalimantan Tengah). J Hum Evol 11:19–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Girndt A, Meier T, Call J (2008) Task constraints mask great apes’ ability to solve the trap-table task. J Exp Psychol Anim B 34:54–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hihara S (2003) Rapid learning of sequential tool use by macaque monkeys. Physiol Behav 78:427–434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hunt GR, Rutledge RB, Gray RD (2006) The right tool for the job: what strategies do wild New Caledonian crows use? Anim Cogn 9:307–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kacelnik A (2009) Tools for thought or thought for tools? PNAS 106:10071–10072PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaller CP, Rahm B, Köstering L, Unterrainer JM (2011) Reviewing the impact of problem structure on planning: a software tool for analyzing tower tasks. Behav Brain Res 216:1–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuczaj SA, Gory JD, Xitco MJ (2009) How intelligent are dolphins? A partial answer based on their ability to plan their behavior when confronted with novel problems. Jpn J Anim Psychol 59:99–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lethmate J (1979) Instrumental behaviour of zoo orang-utans. J Hum Evol 8:741–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lethmate J (1982) Tool-using skills of orang-utans. J Hum Evol 11:49–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martin-Ordas G, Call J (2009) Assessing generalization within and between trap tasks in the great apes. Int J Comp Psychol 22:43–60Google Scholar
  29. Martin-Ordas G, Call J, Colmenares F (2008) Tubes, tables and traps: great apes solve two functionally equivalent trap tasks but show no evidence of transfer across tasks. Anim Cogn 11:423–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Melis AP, Warneken F, Jensen K, Schneider AC, Call J, Tomasello M (2011) Chimpanzees help conspecifics obtain food and non-food items. Proc R Soc B 278:1405–1413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mitchell P, Currie G, Ziegler F (2009) Two routes to perspective: Simulation and rule-use as approaches to mentalizing. Brit J Dev Psychol 27:513–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miyata H, Fujita K (2008) Pigeons (Columba livia) plan future moves on computerized maze tasks. Anim Cogn 11:505–516Google Scholar
  33. Miyata H, Gajdon GK, Huber L, Fujita K (2011) How do keas (Nestor notabilis) solve artificial-fruit problems with multiple locks? Anim Cogn 14:45–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mulcahy NJ, Call J (2006) How great apes perform on a modified trap-tube task. Anim Cogn 9:193–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pan J, Kennedy EH, Pickering T, Menzel CR, Stone BW, Fragaszy DM (2011) Development of maze navigation by tufted capuchins (Cebus apella). Behav Proc 86:206–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Povinelli DJ (2000) Folk physics for apes: the Chimpanzee's theory of how the world works. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Povinelli DJ, Cant JGH (1995) Arboreal clambering and the evolution of self-conception. Q Rev Biol 70:393–421PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Russon AE (2010) Life history: the energy-efficient orangutan. Curr Biol 20:981–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Santos LR, Rosati A, Sproul C, Spaulding B, Hauser MD (2005) Means-means-end tool choice in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus): finding the limits on primates’ knowledge of tools. Anim Cogn 8:236–246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seed AM, Byrne RW (2010) Animal tool-use. Curr Biol 20:R1032–R1039PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Seed AM, Tebbich S, Emery NJ, Clayton NS (2006) Investigating physical cognition in rooks, Corvus frugilegus. Curr Biol 16:697–701PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Seed AM, Call J, Emery NJ, Clayton NS (2009) Chimpanzees solve the trap problem when the confound of tool-use is removed. J Exp Psychol Anim B 35:23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shah A, Oppenheimer D (2008) Heuristics made easy: an effort-reduction framework. Psych Bull 134:207–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sloman A (1999) What sort of architecture is required for a human-like agent? In: Wooldridge M, Rao AS (eds) Foundations of rational agency. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 35–52Google Scholar
  45. Suddendorf T, Whiten A (2001) Mental evolution and development: evidence for secondary representation in children, great apes, and other animals. Psych Bull 127:629–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Taylor AH, Hunt GR, Holzhaider JC, Gray RD (2007) Spontaneous metatool use by New Caledonian crows. Curr Biol 17:1504–1507PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Taylor AH, Hunt GR, Medina FS, Gray RD (2009) Do New Caledonian crows solve physical problems through causal reasoning? Proc R Soc B 276:247–254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Taylor AH, Elliffe D, Hunt GR, Gray RD (2010) Complex cognition and behavioural innovation in New Caledonian crows. Proc R Soc B 277:2637–2643PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tebbich S, Seed AM, Emery NJ, Clayton NS (2007) Non-tool-using rooks, Corvus frugilegus, solve the trap-tube problem. Anim Cogn 10:225–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thorpe SKS, Crompton RH (2005) Locomotor ecology of wild orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus abelii) in the Gunung leuser ecosystem, Sumatra, Indonesia: a multivariate analysis using log-linear modeling. Am J Phys Anthropol 127:58–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thorpe SKS, Crompton RH (2006) Orangutan positional behavior and the nature of arboreal locomotion in Hominoidea. Am J Phys Anthropol 131:384–401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thorpe SKS, Crompton RH, Alexander RMcN (2007) Orangutans use compliant branches to lower the energetic cost of locomotion. Biol Lett 3:253–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thorpe SKS, Holder R, Crompton RH (2009) Orangutans employ unique strategies to control branch flexibility. PNAS 106:12646–12651PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Visalberghi E, Limongelli L (1994) Lack of comprehension of cause-effect relations in tool-using capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). J Comp Psych 108:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vlamings PHJM, Hare B, Call J (2010) Reaching around barriers: the performance of the great apes and 3–5-year-old children. Anim Cogn 13:273–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Willats P (1989) Development of problem-solving in infancy. In: Slater A, Bremmer G (eds) Infant development. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 143–182Google Scholar
  57. Wimpenny JH, Weir AAS, Clayton L, Rutz C, Kacelnik A (2009) Cognitive processes associated with sequential tool use in New Caledonian crows. PloS ONE 4:e6471PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Personalised recommendations