Animal Cognition

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 199–213 | Cite as

Tool-use by rats (Rattus norvegicus): tool-choice based on tool features

  • Akane NaganoEmail author
  • Kenjiro Aoyama
Original Paper


In the present study, we investigated whether rats (Rattus norvegicus) could be trained to use tools in an experimental setting. In Experiment 1, we investigated whether rats became able to choose appropriate hook-shaped tools to obtain food based on the spatial arrangements of the tool and food, similar to tests conducted in non-human primates and birds. With training, the rats were able to choose the appropriate hooks. In Experiments 2 and 3, we conducted transfer tests with novel tools. The rats had to choose between a functional and non-functional rake-shaped tool in these experiments. In Experiment 2, the tools differed from those of Experiment 1 in terms of shape, color, and texture. In Experiment 3, there was a contradiction between the appearance and the functionality of these tools. The rats could obtain the food with a functional rake with a transparent blade but could not obtain food with a non-functional rake with an opaque soft blade. All rats chose the functional over the non-functional rakes in Experiment 2, but none of the rats chose the functional rake in Experiment 3. Thus, the rats were able to choose the functional rakes only when there was no contradiction between the appearance and functionality of the tools. These results suggest that rats understand the spatial and physical relationships between the tool, food, and self when there was no such contradiction.


Tool-use behavior Tool-choice behavior Rodents Rats 



No external funding supported this research.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Data availability

The datasets obtained during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Research involving animals

All applicable institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted.

Supplementary material

10071_2016_1039_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (247 kb)
Online Resource 1 (PDF 247 kb)
10071_2016_1039_MOESM2_ESM.mp4 (3.5 mb)
Online Resource 2: Movie S1 On the first day of the hook pulling training in Experiment 1, the rat was able to obtain the reward successfully for the first time (MP4 3566 kb)
10071_2016_1039_MOESM3_ESM.mp4 (3.4 mb)
Online Resource 3: Movie S2 An example of a successful trial in the hook choice training during Experiment 1 (MP4 3504 kb)
10071_2016_1039_MOESM4_ESM.mp4 (4.8 mb)
Online Resource 4: Movie S3 In this example of a failure trial during the hook choice training, the rat chose the appropriate hook, but it failed to obtain the reward because the hook overturned (MP4 4935 kb)
10071_2016_1039_MOESM5_ESM.mp4 (5.1 mb)
Online Resource 5: Movie S4 In this example of a failure trial during the hook choice training, the rat chose the appropriate hook, but it failed to obtain the reward because it gave the reward a flick with its paw (MP4 5268 kb)
10071_2016_1039_MOESM6_ESM.mp4 (1.5 mb)
Online Resource 6: Movie S5 In this example of a failure trial during the hook choice training, the rat chose the appropriate hook, but it failed to obtain the reward because it raised the end of the hook, causing the hook to pass above the reward (MP4 1498 kb)
10071_2016_1039_MOESM7_ESM.mp4 (6.2 mb)
Online Resource 7: Movie S6 An example of the functional and the non-functional rake choice trials in Experiment 2 (MP4 6372 kb)
10071_2016_1039_MOESM8_ESM.mp4 (7.4 mb)
Online Resource 8: Movie S7 An example of the functional and the non-functional rake choice trials in Experiment 3 (MP4 7615 kb)


  1. Baber C (2003) Cognition and tool use: forms of engagement in human and animal use of tools. Taylor & Francis, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartal IBA, Decety J, Mason P (2011) Empathy and pro-social behavior in rats. Science 334:1427–1430CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck BB (1980) Animal tool behavior: the use and manufacture of tools. Garland STPM Press, New York, p 10Google Scholar
  4. Bentley-Condit VK, Smith EO (2010) Animal tool use: current definitions and an updated comprehensive catalog. Behaviour 147:185–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheng K (1986) A purely geometric module in the rat’s spatial representation. Cognition 23:149–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cummins-Sebree SE, Fragaszy DM (2005) Choosing and using tools: capuchins (Cebus apella) use a different metric than tamarins (Saguinus oedipus). J Comp Psychol 119:210–219CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 29:233–242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hauser MD (1997) Artifactual kinds and functional design features: what a primate understands without language. Cognition 64:285–308CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Horner V, Whiten A (2005) Causal knowledge and imitation/emulation switching in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children (Homo sapiens). Anim Cogn 8:164–181CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kaas JH (2004) Evolution of somatosensory and motor cortex in primates. Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol 281:1148–1156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaas JH (2008) The evolution of the complex sensory and motor systems of the human brain. Brain Res Bull 75:384–390CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kumazawa-Manita N, Hama H, Miyawaki A, Iriki A (2013) Tool use specific adult neurogenesis and synaptogenesis in rodent (Octodon degus) hippocampus. PLoS ONE 8:e58649CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Manrique HM, Call J (2011) Spontaneous use of tools as straws in great apes. Anim Cogn 14:213–226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Manrique HM, Gross AN, Call J (2010) Great apes select tools on the basis of their rigidity. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 36:409–422CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Manrique HM, Sabbatini G, Call J, Visalberghi E (2011) Tool choice on the basis of rigidity in capuchin monkeys. Anim Cogn 14:775–786CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Nudo RJ (2007) Postinfarct cortical plasticity and behavioral recovery. Stroke 38:840–845CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Obayashi S, Suhara T, Kawabe K, Okauchi T, Maeda J, Akine Y, Onoe H, Iriki A (2001) Functional brain mapping of monkey tool use. Neuroimage 14:853–861CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Okanoya K, Tokimoto N, Kumazawa N, Hihara S, Iriki A (2008) Tool-use training in a species of rodent: the emergence of an optimal motor strategy and functional understanding. PLoS ONE 3:e1860CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Passingham RE, Myers C, Rawlins N, Lightfoot V, Fearn S (1988) Premotor cortex in the rat. Behav Neurosci 102:101–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Prusky GT, Harker KT, Douglas RM, Whishaw IQ (2002) Variation in visual acuity within pigmented, and between pigmented albino rat strains. Behav Brain Res 136:339–348CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Santos LR, Mahajan N, Barnes JL (2005a) How prosimian primates represent tools: experiments with two lemur species (Eulemur fulvus and Lemur catta). J Comp Psychol 119:394–403CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Santos LR, Rosati A, Sproul C, Spaulding B, Hauser MD (2005b) Means-means-end tool choice in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus): finding the limits on primates’ knowledge of tools. Anim Cogn 8:236–246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Santos LR, Pearson HM, Spaepen GM, Tsao F, Hauser MD (2006) Probing the limits of tool competence: experiments with two non-tool-using species (Cercopithecus aethiops and Saguinus oedipus). Anim Cogn 9:94–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Shuster G, Sherman PW (1998) Tool use by naked mole-rats. Anim Cogn 1:71–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sirianni G, Mundry R, Boesch C (2015) When to choose which tool: multidimensional and conditional selection of nut-cracking hammers in wild chimpanzees. Anim Behav 100:152–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Smith NJ, Horst NK, Liu B, Caetano MS, Laubach M (2010) Reversible inactivation of rat premotor cortex impairs temporal presentation, but not inhibitory control, during simple reaction-time performance. Front Integr Neurosci 4:124CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. St. Amant R, Horton TE (2008) Revisiting the definition of animal tool use. Anim Behav 75:1199–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tebbich S, Sterelny K, Teschke I (2010) The tale of the finch: adaptive radiation and behavioural flexibility. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 365:1099–1109CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Tolman EC (1937) The acquisition of string-pulling by rats—conditioned response or sign-gestalt? Psychol Rev 44:195–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Visalberghi E, Addessi E, Truppa V, Spagnoletti N, Ottoni E, Izar P, Fragaszy D (2009) Selection of effective stone tools by wild bearded capuchin monkeys. Curr Biol 19:213–217CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Visalberghi E, Sirianni G, Fragaszy D, Boesch C (2015) Percussive tool use by Taï Western chimpanzees and Fazenda Boa Vista bearded capuchin monkeys: a comparison. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Sci 370:20140351CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of PsychologyDoshisha UniversityKyotanabeJapan
  2. 2.Faculty of PsychologyDoshisha UniversityKyotanabeJapan

Personalised recommendations