Animal Cognition

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 577–590 | Cite as

Understanding the functional properties of tools: chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) attend to tool features differently

  • Gloria Sabbatini
  • Valentina Truppa
  • Alenka Hribar
  • Barbara Gambetta
  • Josep Call
  • Elisabetta Visalberghi
Original Paper

Abstract

We examined whether eight capuchins and eight chimpanzees were able to retrieve a reward placed inside a tube, of varying length, by selecting the correct stick from different sets of three sticks differing in length (functional feature) and handle (non-functional feature). Moreover, to investigate whether seeing the stick inside the tube (visual feedback) improves performance, half of the subjects were tested with a transparent apparatus and the other half with an opaque apparatus. Phase 1 included (a) Training 1 in which each stick had a different handle and (b) Transfer 1 in which the handles were switched among sticks, so that the functional tool had the same length but a different handle than before. The seven chimpanzees and one capuchin that passed Transfer 1 received Transfer 2. The other subjects received (a) Training 2, which used the same sticks from Phase 1 with handles switched in every trial, and (b) Transfer 2 in which the tube was longer, all sticks had the same new handle, and the formerly longest tool became intermediate in length. Eight chimpanzees and three capuchins passed Transfer 2. Results showed that (1) chimpanzees applied relational structures in tool using tasks more quickly than capuchins and (2) capuchins required more varied experience to attend to the functional feature of the tool. Interestingly, visual feedback did not improve performance in either species.

Keywords

Tool use Functional features Relational rules Visual feedback Primates 

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MPG 15132 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (MPG 15180 kb)

References

  1. Amici F, Aureli F, Call J (2010) Monkeys and apes: are their cognitive skills really so different? Am J Phys Anthropol 143:188–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson JR, Henneman MC (1994) Solutions to a tool-use problem in a pair of Cebus apella. Mammalia 58:351–361Google Scholar
  3. Bechtel S (2011) Analogiebildung im Kleinkindalter: der Einfluss von perzeptuellen, funktionalen und kausalen Informationen auf das Lösen einer Tool-Use-Aufgabe. Unpublished Diploma thesis, University of HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  4. Bermejo M, Illera G (1999) Tool-set for termite-fishing and honey extraction by wild chimpanzees in the Lossi Forest, Congo. Primates 40:619–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bluff LA, Weir AAS, Rutz C, Winpenny JH, Kacelnik A (2007) Tool-related cognition in New Caledonian crows. Comp Cogn Behav Rev 2:1–25Google Scholar
  6. Boesch C, Boesch H (1990) Tool use and tool making in wild chimpanzees. Folia Primatol 54:86–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Call J (2000) Representing space and objects in monkeys and apes. Cogn Sci 24:397–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chappell J, Kacelnik A (2002) Tool selectivity in a non-primate, the New Caledonian crow (Corvus moneduloides). Anim Cogn 5:71–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chappell J, Kacelnik A (2004) Selection of tool diameter by New Caledonian crows Corvus moneduloides. Anim Cogn 7:121–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cummins-Sebree SE, Fragaszy DM (2005) Choosing and using tools: capuchins (Cebus apella) use a different metric than tamarins (Saguinus oedipus). J Comp Psychol 119:210–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fagot J, Deruelle C (1997) Processing of global and local visual information and hemispheric specialization in humans (Homo sapiens) and baboons (Papio papio). J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 23:429–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fagot J, Tomonaga M (1999) Comparative assessment of global-local processing in humans (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): use of a visual search task with compound stimuli. J Comp Psychol 113:3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Flemming TM, Kennedy EH (2011) Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) relational matching: playing by their own (analogical) rules. J Comp Psychol 125:207–215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flemming TM, Beran MJ, Thompson RKR, Kleider HM, Washburn DA (2008) What meaning means for same and different: analogical reasoning in humans (Homo sapiens), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). J Comp Psychol 122:176–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fragaszy DM, Visalberghi E, Fedigan LM (2004) The complete capuchin. The biology of the genus Cebus. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Fragaszy DM, Kennedy E, Murnane A, Menzel C, 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
  17. Fujita K, Kuroshima H, Asai S (2003) How do tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) understand causality involved in tool use? J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 29:233–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fujita K, Sato Y, Kuroshima H (2011) Learning and generalization of tool use by tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) in tasks involving three factors: reward, tool, and hindrance. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 37:10–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gentner D, Rattermann MJ (1991) Language and the career of similarity. In: Gelman SA, Byrnes JP (eds) Perspectives on language and thought: interrelations in development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 225–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gentner D, Rattermann MJ, Markman A, Kotovsky L (1995) Two forces in the development of relational similarity. In: Simon T, Halford G (eds) Developing cognitive competence: new approaches to process modeling. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 263–313Google Scholar
  21. Goodall J (1986) The chimpanzees of Gombe: patterns of behavior. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Hanus D, Call J (2008) Chimpanzees infer the location of a reward on the basis of the effect of its weight. Curr Biol 18:R370–R372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanus D, Call J (2011) Chimpanzee problem-solving: contrasting the use of causal and arbitrary cues. Anim Cogn 14:871–878PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haun DBM, Call J (2009) Great apes’ capacities to recognize relational similarity. Cognition 110:147–159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holzhaider JC, Hunt GR, Campbell VM, Gray RD (2008) Do wild New Caledonian crows (Corvus moneduloides) attend to the functional properties of their tools? Anim Cogn 11:243–254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hopkins WD, Washburn D (2002) Matching visual stimuli on the basis of global and local features by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Anim Cogn 5:27–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hribar A, Haun D, Call J (2011) Great apes’ strategies to map spatial relations. Anim Cogn 14:511–523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Katz JS, Wright AA, Bodily KD (2007) Issues in the comparative cognition of abstract-concept learning. Comp Cogn Behav Rev 2:79–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Kenemans JL, Bekker EM, LijYjt M, Overtoom CCE, Jonkman LM, Verbaten MN (2005) Attention deficit and impulsivity: selecting, shifting, and stopping. Int J Psychophysiol 58:59–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kennedy EH, Fragaszy DM (2008) Analogical reasoning in a capuchin monkey (Cebus apella). J Comp Psychol 122:167–175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klüver H (1933) Behavior mechanisms in monkeys. University of Chicago Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Köhler W (1925/1976) The mentality of apes. Liveright, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Loewenstein J, Gentner D (2005) Relational language and the development of relational mapping. Cognit Psychol 50:315–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lonsdorf EV, Ross SR, Linick SA, Milstein MS, Melber TN (2009) An experimental, comparative investigation of tool use in chimpanzees and gorillas. Anim Behav 77:1119–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mannu M, Ottoni EB (2009) The enhanced tool-kit of two groups of wild bearded capuchin monkeys in the caatinga: tool making, associative use, and secondary tools. Am J Primatol 71:242–251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Manrique HM, Gross A, Call J (2010) Great apes select tools on the basis of their rigidity. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 36:409–422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Manrique HM, Sabbatini G, Call J, Visalberghi E (2011) Tool choice on the basis of rigidity in capuchin monkeys. Anim Cogn 14:775–786PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. McGrew WC (1992) Chimpanzee material culture: implications for human evolution. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mulcahy NJ, Call J (2006) How great apes perform on a modified trap-tube task. Anim Cogn 9:193–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mulcahy NJ, Call J, Dunbar RIM (2005) Gorillas (Gorilla gorilla) and orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) encode relevant problem features in a tool-using task. J Comp Psychol 119:23–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nash VJ (1982) Tool use by captive chimpanzees at an artificial termite mound. Zoo Biol 1:211–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Paik JH, Mix KS (2006) Preschoolers’ use of surface similarity in object comparisons: taking context into account. J Exp Child Psychol 95:194–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Paquette D (1992) Discovering and learning tool-use for fishing honey by captive chimpanzees. Hum Evol 7:17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Povinelli DJ (2000) Folk physics for apes. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Richland LE, Morrison RG, Holyoak KJ (2006) Children’s development of analogical reasoning: insights from scene analogy problems. J Exp Child Psychol 94:249–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Santos LR, Pearson HM, Spaepen GM, Tsao F, Hauser M (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
  49. Sanz C, Call J, Morgan D (2009) Design complexity in termite-fishing tools of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Biol Lett 5:293–296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Seed AM, Call J (2009) Causal knowledge for events and objects in animals. In: Watanabe S, Blaisdell AP, Huber L, Young A, Daigaku KG (eds) Rational animals, irrational humans. Keio University, Tokyo, pp 173–188Google Scholar
  51. 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 Behav Process 35:23–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shumaker R, Walkup KR, Beck BB (2011) Animal tool behavior: the use and manufacture of tools by animals. The Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  53. Silva FJ, Silva KM (2010) How do adult humans compare with New Caledonian crows in tool selectivity? Learn Behav 38:87–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Souto A, Bione CBC, Bastos M, Bezerra BM, Fragaszy D, Schiel N (2011) Critically endangered blonde capuchins fish for termites and use new techniques to accomplish the task. Biol Lett 7:532–535PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Spencer JR, Smith LB, Thelen E (2001) Tests of a dynamic systems account of the A-not-B error: the influence of prior experience on the spatial memory abilities of two-year-olds. Child Dev 72:1327–1346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Spinozzi G, De Lillo C, Truppa V (2003) Global and local processing of hierarchical visual stimuli in tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). J Comp Psychol 117:15–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Spinozzi G, Lubrano G, Truppa V (2004) Categorization of above and below spatial relations by tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). J Comp Psychol 118:403–412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tebbich S, Bshary R (2004) Cognitive abilities related to tool use in the woodpecker finch, Cactospiza pallida. Anim Behav 67:689–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thompson RKR, Oden DL, Boysen ST (1997) Language-naïve chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) judge relations between relations in a conceptual matching-to-sample task. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 23:31–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tomasello M, Call J (1997) Primate cognition. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. Troise A (1991) Acquisizione e comprensione dell’uso di strumenti nei bambini: una comparazione con i primati non umani. Diploma thesis, University of Rome “Sapienza”Google Scholar
  62. Truppa V, Garofoli D, Castorina G, Piano Mortari E, Natale F, Visalberghi E (2010) Identity concept learning in matching-to-sample tasks by tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Anim Cogn 13:835–848PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Truppa V, Piano Mortari E, Garofoli D, Privitera S, Visalberghi E (2011) Same/Different concept learning by capuchin monkeys in matching-to-sample tasks. PLoS ONE 6(8):e23809. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023809 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Visalberghi E, Fragaszy D (2006) What is challenging about tool use? The capuchin’s perspective. In: Wasserman EA, Zentall TR (eds) Comparative cognition: experimental explorations of animal intelligence. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 529–552Google Scholar
  65. 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
  66. Visalberghi E, Limongelli L (1996) Action and understanding: tool use revisited through the mind of capuchin monkeys. In: Russon A, Brad K, Parker S (eds) Reaching into thought.The minds of the great apes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 57–79Google Scholar
  67. Visalberghi E, Trinca L (1989) Tool use in capuchin monkeys: distinguishing between performing and understanding. Primates 30:511–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Visalberghi E, Fragaszy DM, Savage-Rumbaugh S (1995) Performance in a tool-using task by common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), bonobos (Pan paniscus), an orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus), and capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). J Comp Psychol 109:52–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Visalberghi E, Addessi E, Spagnoletti N, Truppa V, Ottoni E, Izar P, Fragaszy D (2009) Selection of effective stone tools by wild capuchin monkeys. Curr Biol 19:213–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wasserman EA, Bhatt RS (1992) Conceptualization of natural and artificial stimuli by pigeons. In: Honig WK, Fetterman JG (eds) Cognitive aspects of stimulus control. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 203–223Google Scholar
  71. Whiten A, Goodall J, McGrew WC, Nishida T, Reynolds V, Sugiyama Y, Tutin CEG, Wrangham RW, Boesch C (1999) Cultures in chimpanzees. Nature 399:682PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gloria Sabbatini
    • 1
  • Valentina Truppa
    • 1
  • Alenka Hribar
    • 2
  • Barbara Gambetta
    • 1
    • 3
  • Josep Call
    • 2
  • Elisabetta Visalberghi
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Cognitive Sciences and TechnologiesNational Research CouncilRomeItaly
  2. 2.Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary AnthropologyLeipzigGermany
  3. 3.University of Rome “La Sapienza”RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations