Animal Cognition

, Volume 15, Issue 5, pp 1021–1030 | Cite as

Performance on patterned string problems by common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus)

  • Matthew Gagne
  • Kathryn Levesque
  • Lauren Nutile
  • Charles Locurto
Short Communication

Abstract

This experiment examined the performance of common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) on a series of patterned string problems to assess the marmosets’ understanding of means–ends relationships. One marmoset, Jet, was exposed to a series of problems that were ordered in terms of perceived difficulty during two testings that were separated by 1 year. In the second testing, Jet received problems that had been used during the first testing along with three new problems. Each of the new problems was designed to be an exemplar of the type of problem that Jet had experienced difficulty with in the first testing. A second marmoset, Peaches, was tested on the same set of problems given to Jet in the second testing. Results indicated that the marmosets’ performance on these problems fell into three categories. In one category, some problems were solved without evidence of trial-and-error learning. In a second category, there were problems in which the marmosets responded at chance levels initially but evidenced improvement as a function of extended testing. In a third category, some problems appeared to be virtually unsolvable even with extended testing. Taken together, these results indicate that the marmosets were able to learn the means–ends connection between pulling a string and obtaining food. This learning was best characterized as a trial-and-error process for some problem forms, while for others there appeared to be rapid learning that did not require extensive practice. The instances of rapid learning may be the result of the application of a simple spatial proximity rule in which the marmosets chose the string that was closest to an imaginary line drawn between the marmoset and the reinforcer.

Keywords

String pulling Insight Trial and error Marmosets 

References

  1. Alberto PA, Troutman AC (2006) Applied behavior analysis for teachers (7th ed). Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck BB (1967) A study of problem solving by gibbons. Behaviour 28:95–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birch HG (1945) The role of motivational factors in insightful problem-solving. J Comp Psychol 38:295–317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carr H, Watson JB (1908) Orientation in the White Rat. J Comp Neurol Psychol 18:27–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Diedrich FJ, Thelen E, Smith LB, Corbetta D (2000) Motor memory is a factor in infant perseverative errors. Dev Sci 3:479–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Epstein R, Kirshni CE, Lanza RP, Rubin LC (1984) ‘Insight’ in the pigeon: antecedents and determinants of an intelligent performance. Nature 308:61–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gould JL, Gould CG (1994) The animal mind. Scientific American Library/Scientific American Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Halsey LG, Bezerra BM, Souto AS (2006) Can wild common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) solve the parallel strings task? Anim Cogn 9:229–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hauser MD, Kralik J, Botto-Mahan C (1999) Problem solving and functional design features: experiments on cotton-top tamarins, Saguinus oedipus. Anim Behav 57:565–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hauser MD, Williams T, Kralik JD, Moskovitz D (2001) What guides a search for food that has disappeared? Experiments on cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus). J Comp Psychol 115:140–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hauser MD, 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
  12. Heinrich B, Bugnyar T (2005) Testing problem solving in ravens: string-pulling to reach food. Ethology 111:962–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hood BM, Hauser MD, Anderson L, Santos L (1999) Gravity biases in a non-human primate? Dev Sci 2:35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huber L, Gajdon GK (2006) Technical intelligence in animals: the kea model. Anim Cogn 9:295–305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Itoh K, Izumi A, Kojima S (2001) Object discrimination learning in aged Japanese monkeys. Behav Neurosci 115:259–270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Köhler W (1925/1976) The mentality of apes. In: Winter E, (Trans.), Liveright, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Monk CS, Gunderson VM, Gran KS, Mechling JL (1996) A demonstration of the memory savings effect in infant monkeys. Dev Psychol 32:1051–1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Osthaus B, Lea SG, Slate AM (2005) Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) fail to show understanding of means-end connections in a string-pulling task. Anim Cogn 8:37–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Osthaus B, Marlow D, Ducat P (2010) Minding the gap: spatial perseveration error in dogs. Anim Cogn 13:881–885PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pepperberg IM (2004) ‘Insightful’ string-pulling in Grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus) is affected by vocal competence. Anim Cogn 7:263–266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schiller PH (1957) Innate motor action as a basis of Learning. In: Schiller CH (ed) Instinctive behavior; the development of a modern concept. International University Press, Oxford, pp 264–287Google Scholar
  22. Seibt U, Wickler W (2006) Individuality in problem solving: string pulling in two Carduelis Species (Aves: Passeriformes). Ethology 112:493–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Taylor AH, Medina FS, Holzhaider JC, Hearne LJ, Hunt GR, Gray RD (2010) An investigation into the cognition behind spontaneous string pulling in New Caledonian crows. PLoS ONE 5:e9345PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Thorpe WH (1964) Learning and Instinct in animals. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Tomasello M, Call J (1997) Primate cognition. New York, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Vince MA (1961) String-pulling in birds: III. The successful response in greenfinches and canaries. Behaviour 17:103–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Whitt E, Douglas M, Osthaus B, Hocking I (2009) Domestic cats (Felis catus) do not show causal understanding in a string-pulling task. Anim Cogn 12:739–743PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew Gagne
    • 1
  • Kathryn Levesque
    • 1
  • Lauren Nutile
    • 1
  • Charles Locurto
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyCollege of the Holy CrossWorcesterUSA

Personalised recommendations