, Volume 55, Issue 4, pp 549–557 | Cite as

Double invisible displacement understanding in orangutans: testing in non-locomotor and locomotor space

  • Suma Mallavarapu
  • Tara S. Stoinski
  • Bonnie M. Perdue
  • Terry L. Maple
Original Article


The nonadjacent double invisible displacement task has been used to test for the ability of different species to mentally represent the unperceived trajectory of an object. The task typically requires three occluders/boxes in a linear array and involves hiding an object in one of two nonadjacent boxes visited in succession. Previous research indicates that 19-, 26-, and 30-month-old children and various nonhuman species cannot solve these displacements. It has been hypothesized that this is because individuals are unable to inhibit searching in the unbaited center box that was never visited by the experimenter. It has been suggested that presenting the task in a large-scale locomotor space might allow individuals to overcome this inhibition problem. In the present study, we tested orangutans on adjacent and nonadjacent double invisible displacements with the traditional setup (experiment 1) and in locomotor space with boxes placed 1.22 m apart (experiment 2). In both experiments, subjects were able to solve adjacent, but not nonadjacent, trials. The failure on nonadjacent trials appeared to be because of an inability to inhibit sequential search on the second choice as well as because of a large number of first-choice errors (directly choosing an incorrect box). The current results support previous findings that orangutans exhibit some constraints when representing the invisible trajectory of objects.


Object permanence Orangutans Adjacent invisible displacements Nonadjacent invisible displacements 



We would like to thank the primate care staff at Zoo Atlanta. We would also like to thank the associate editor and reviewers for comments that greatly improved this manuscript. This research complied with protocols approved by Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees at Zoo Atlanta and Georgia Institute of Technology and adhered to the legal requirements of the USA.


  1. Albiach-Serrano A, Call J, Barth J (2010) Great apes track hidden objects after changes in the objects’ position and in subject’s orientation. Am J Primatol 72:349–359PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barth J, Call J (2006) Tracking the displacement of objects: a series of tasks with great apes (Pan troglodytes, Pan paniscus, Gorilla gorilla, and Pongo pygmaeus) and young children (Homo sapiens). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 32(3):239–252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Call J (2001) Object permanence in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and children (Homo sapiens). J Comp Psychol 115:159–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collier-Baker E, Suddendorf T (2006) Do chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and 2-year-old children (Homo sapiens) understand double invisible displacement? J Comp Psychol 120(2):89–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collier-Baker E, Davis JM, Suddendorf T (2004) Do dogs (Canis familiaris) understand invisible displacement? J Comp Psychol 118(4):421–433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collier-Baker E, Davis JM, Nielsen M, Suddendorf T (2006) Do chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) understand single invisible displacement? Anim Cogn 9:55–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Blois ST, Novak MA (1994) Object permanence in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). J Comp Psychol 108(4):318–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Blois ST, Novak MA, Bond M (1998) Object permanence in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) and squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus). J Comp Psychol 112:137–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deppe AM, Wright PC, Szelistowski WA (2009) Object permanence in lemurs. Anim Cogn 12(2):381–388PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dore FY, Dumas C (1987) Psychology of animal cognition: piagetian studies. Psychol Bull 102:219–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dore FY, Goulet S (1998) The comparative analysis of object knowledge. In: Langer J, Killen M (eds) Piaget, evolution, and development. Erlbaum, New Jersey, pp 55–72Google Scholar
  12. Fedor A, Skollar G, Szerencsy N, Ujhelyi M (2008) Object permanence tests on gibbons (Hylobatidae). J Comp Psychol 122(4):403–417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Filion CM, Washburn DA, Gulledge JP (1996) Can monkeys (Macaca mulatta) represent invisible displacement? J Comp Psychol 110:386–395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fiset S, LeBlanc V (2007) Invisible displacement understanding in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris): the role of visual cues in search behavior. Anim Cogn 10:211–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gagnon S, Doré FY (1992) Search behavior in various breeds of adult dogs (Canis familiaris): object permanence and olfactory cues. J Comp Psychol 106:58–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jaakkola K, Guarino E, Rodriguez M, Erb L, Trone M (2010) What do dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) understand about hidden objects? Anim Cogn 13:103–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. MacDonald SE, Agnes MM (1999) Orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus abelii) spatial memory and behavior in a foraging task. J Comp Psychol 113:213–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mallavarapu S (2009) Object permanence in orangutans, gorillas, and black-and-white ruffed lemurs (doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (3376320)Google Scholar
  19. Mendes N, Huber L (2004) Object permanence in common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). J Comp Psychol 118(1):103–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Menzel E (1973) Chimpanzee spatial memory organization. Science 182:943–945PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mulcahy NJ, Hedge V (2012) Are great apes tested with an abject object-choice task? Anim Behav 83:313–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mundry F, Fischer J (1998) Use of statistical programs for nonparametric tests of small samples often leads to incorrect P values: examples from Animal Behaviour. Anim Behav 56:256–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Natale F (1989) Stage 5 object-concept. In: Antinucci F (ed) Cognitive structure and development in nonhuman primates. Erlbaum, New Jersey, pp 89–95Google Scholar
  24. Natale F, Antinucci F, Spinozzi G, Potí P (1986) Stage 6 object concept in nonhuman primate cognition: a comparison between gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) and Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata). J Comp Psychol 100:335–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Neiworth JJ, Steinmark E, Basile BM, Wonders R, Steely F, DeHart C (2003) A test of object permanence in a new-world monkey species, cotton top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus). Anim Cogn 6:27–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Piaget J (1954) The construction of reality in the child. (M. Cook, Trans.). Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Setia TM, Delgado RA, Atmoko SU, Singleton I, van Schaik CP (2009) Social organization and male-female relationships. In: Wich SA, Atmoko SU, Setia TM, van Schaik CP (eds) Orangutans: geographic variation in behavioral ecology and conservation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 245–253Google Scholar
  28. Tomasello M, Call J (1997) Primate cognition. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Monkey Centre and Springer Japan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Suma Mallavarapu
    • 1
  • Tara S. Stoinski
    • 2
  • Bonnie M. Perdue
    • 3
  • Terry L. Maple
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyKennesaw State UniversityKennesawUSA
  2. 2.Zoo AtlantaAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Agnes Scott CollegeDecaturUSA
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyFlorida Atlantic UniversityBoca RatonUSA

Personalised recommendations