Animal Cognition

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 97–105 | Cite as

Object permanence in adult common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus): not everything is an “A-not-B” error that seems to be one

  • Anna Kis
  • Márta Gácsi
  • Friederike Range
  • Zsófia Virányi
Original Paper

Abstract

In this paper, we describe a behaviour pattern similar to the “A-not-B” error found in human infants and young apes in a monkey species, the common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). In contrast to the classical explanation, recently it has been suggested that the “A-not-B” error committed by human infants is at least partially due to misinterpretation of the hider’s ostensively communicated object hiding actions as potential ‘teaching’ demonstrations during the A trials. We tested whether this so-called Natural Pedagogy hypothesis would account for the A-not-B error that marmosets commit in a standard object permanence task, but found no support for the hypothesis in this species. Alternatively, we present evidence that lower level mechanisms, such as attention and motivation, play an important role in committing the “A-not-B” error in marmosets. We argue that these simple mechanisms might contribute to the effect of undeveloped object representational skills in other species including young non-human primates that commit the A-not-B error.

Keywords

Common marmoset “A-not-B” error Motivation Attention Behavioural flexibility 

References

  1. Baillargeon R, Spelke ES, Wasserman S (1985) Object permanence in five-month-old infants. Cognition 20:191–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bard KA, Vauclair J (1984) The communicative context of object manipulation in ape and human adult-infant. Pairs J Hum Evol 13:181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bugnyar T, Huber L (1997) Push or pull: an experimental study on imitation in marmosets. Anim Behav 54:817–831PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caldwell CA, Whiten A (2003) Scrounging facilitates social learning in common marmosets, Callithrix jacchus. Anim Behav 65:1085–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caro TM, Hauser MD (1992) Is there teaching in nonhuman animals? Q Rev Biol 67:151–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Csibra G (2007) Teachers in the wild. Trends Cogn Sci 11:95–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Csibra G (2010) Recognizing communicative intentions in infancy. Mind Lang 25(2):141–168Google Scholar
  8. Csibra G, Gergely Gy (2006) Social learning and social cognition: the case for pedagogy. In: Munakata Y, Johnson M (eds) Processes of change in brain and cognitive development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 249–274Google Scholar
  9. Cummings EM, Bjork EL (1983) Search behavior on multi-choice hiding tasks: evidence for an objective conception of space in infancy. Int J Behav Dev 6:71–87Google Scholar
  10. de Blois ST, Novak MA, Bond M (1998) Object permanence in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) and squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus). J Comp Psychol (Washington, DC: 1983) 112:137–152Google Scholar
  11. Dell’Mour V, Range F, Huber L (2009) Social learning and mother’s behavior in manipulative tasks in infant marmosets. Am J Primatol 71:503–509PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diamond A (1985) Development of the ability to use recall to guide action, as indicated by infants’ performance on AB. Child Dev 56:868–883PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dumas C (1992) Object permanence in cats (Felis catus): an ecological approach to the study of invisible displacements. J Comp Psychol 106:404–410PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fedor A, Skollár G, Szerencsy N, Ujhelyi M (2008) Object permanence tests on gibbons (Hylobatidae). J Comp Psychol 122:403–417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feistner ATC, Price EC (1991) Food offering in new word primates: two species added. Folia Primatol 57(3):165–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferrari SF, Correa HKM, Coutinho PEG (1996) Ecology of the “southern” marmosets (Callithrix aurata and Callithrix flaviceps) how different, how similar? In: Norconk MA, Rosenberger AL, Garber PA (eds) Adaptive radiations of neotropical primates. Plenum Press, New York, pp 157–172Google Scholar
  17. Ferrari PF, Paukner A, Ionica C, Suomi SJ (2009) Reciprocal face-to-face communication between rhesus macaque mothers and their newborn infants. Curr Biol 19:1768–1772PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fiset S (2010) Comment on “differential sensitivity to human communication in dogs, wolves, and human infants”. Science 329:142-bPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gácsi M, Győri B, Virányi Zs, Kubinyi E, Range F, Belényi B, Miklósi Á (2009) Explaining dog wolf differences in utilizing human pointing gestures: selection for synergistic shifts in the development of some social skills. Plos One 4(8):e6584PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Gagnon S, Doré FY (1994) A cross-sectional analysis of object permanence development in dogs (Canis familiaris). J Comp Psychol 108:220–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gómez JC (2005) Species comparative studies and cognitive development. Trends Cogn Sci 9(3):118–125Google Scholar
  23. Gratch G, Appel KJ, Evans WF, LeCompte GK, Wright N (1974) Piaget’s stage IV object concept error: evidence of forgetting or object conception? Child Dev 45:71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kasper C, Voelkl B, Huber L (2008) Tolerated mouth-to-mouth food transfers in common marmosets. Primates 49:153–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Longo MR, Bertenthal BI (2006) Common coding of observation and execution of action in 9-month-old infants. Infancy 10:43–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mendes N, Huber L (2004) Object permanence in common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). J Comp Psychol 118(1):103–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Myowa-Yamakoshi M (2003) Preference for human direct gaze in infant chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Cognition 89:113–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 6:27–37PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Passamani M, Rylands AB (2000) Feeding behavior of Geoffroy’s marmoset (Callithrix geoffroyi) in an Atlantic forest fragment of South-eastern Brazil. Primates 41:27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pepperberg IM, Willner MR, Gravitz LB (1997) Development of piagetian object permanence in a grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus). J Comp Psychol 111(1):63–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Piaget J (1954) Intelligence and affectivity: their relationship during child development. Annual Review, Inc, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  32. Pollok B, Prior H, Gunturkun O (2000) Development of object permanence in food-storing magpies (Pica pica). J Comp Psychol 114:148–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Range F, Huber L (2007) Attention in common marmosets: implications for social-learning experiments. Anim Behav 73:1033–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith LB, Thelen E, Titzer R, McLin D (1999) Knowing in the context of acting: the task dynamics of the A-Not-B error. Psychol Rev 106(2):235–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sophian C, Wellman HM (1983) Selective information use and perseveration in the search behavior of infants and young children. J Exp Child Psychol 35:369–390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Spencer JP, 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
  37. Tardif SD, Harrison ML, Simek MA (1993) Communal infant care in marmosets and tamarins. In: Rylands AB (ed) Marmosets and tamarins: systematics, behaviour and ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 220–234Google Scholar
  38. Thelen E, Smith LB (1994) A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  39. Topál J, Gergely Gy, Miklósi Á, Erdőhegyi Á, Csibra G (2008) Infants’ perseverative search errors are induced by pragmatic misinterpretation. Science 321:1831–1834PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Topál J, Gergely Gy, Erdőhegyi Á, Csibra G, Miklósi Á (2009) Differential sensitivity to human communication in dogs, wolves and human infants. Science 325:1269–1272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Topál J, Miklósi Á, Sümegi Z, Kis A (2010) Response to comments on “differential sensitivity to human communication in dogs, wolves, and human infants”. Science 329:142-dCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Voelkl B, Huber L (2000) True imitation in marmosets. Anim Behav 60:195–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Voelkl B, Huber L (2007) Imitation as faithful copying of a novel technique in marmoset monkeys. PloS One 2:e611PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Voelkl B, Huber L (2006) Hand rearing of infant common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). In: Sackett GP, Ruppenthal GC, Elias K (eds) Nursery rearing of nonhuman primates in the 21st century. Springer, New York, pp 121–129Google Scholar
  45. Watson JS, Gergely Gy, Topál J, Gácsi M, Sárközi Zs, Csányi V (2001) Distinguishing logic versus association in the solution of an invisiable displacement task by children and dogs: using negation of disjunction. J Comp Psychol 115:219–226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Werdenich D, Huber L (2002) Social factors determine cooperation in marmosets. Anim Behav 64:771–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zucca P, Milos N, Vallortigara G (2007) Piagetian object permanence and its development in Eurasian jays (Garrulus glandarius). Anim Cogn 10:243–258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Kis
    • 1
  • Márta Gácsi
    • 1
  • Friederike Range
    • 2
  • Zsófia Virányi
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of EthologyEötvös UniversityBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Department of Cognitive BiologyUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  3. 3.Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition ResearchAltenbergAustria

Personalised recommendations