The way in which animals grasp objects to perform subsequent action execution allows studying their anticipatory abilities. We examined whether 11 capuchin monkeys (Sapajus spp.) were able to prospectively grasp a magnetic dowel to use it as a tool to retrieve a baited metallic container from a plexiglas box placed in front of them. We investigated whether and how initial dowel orientation (horizontal vs vertical) affected grasping and using the dowel to retrieve the container in two testing conditions: (1) 2-FE condition in which the dowel had two functional magnetic ends; (2) 1-FE condition in which the dowel had only one functional magnetic end. In the 2-FE condition, capuchins had to take into account the initial dowel orientation since both ends were functional, whereas in the 1-FE condition capuchins had also to take into account the initial functional end position when grasping the dowel. Capuchins were trained to grasp the dowel to put one functional end in contact with the metallic container. However, they did not learn to associate the functional end of the 1-FE dowel to successful retrieval. Capuchins showed better anticipatory planning (1) in 2-FE than in 1-FE condition and (2) when the dowel was initially positioned on the horizontal plane than on the vertical one. Moreover, hand preferences affected planning in the 1-FE condition. Results were discussed within the frameworks of primates’ abilities to use abstract cues and on their abilities to process functional features and spatial cues and to perform mental rotations.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
The raw data that support the main findings of the present study are available in the Supplementary materials.
Adalbjornsson CF, Fischman MG, Rudisill ME (2008) The end-state comfort effect in young children. Res Q Exerc Sport 79:36–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2008.10599458
Bongers RM, Smitsman AW, Michaels CF (2003) Geometries and dynamics of a rod determine how it is used for reaching. J Mot Behav 35:4–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222890309602117
Chapman KM, Weiss DJ, Rosenbaum DA (2010) Evolutionary roots of motor planning: the end-state comfort effect in lemurs. J Comp Psychol 124:229–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018025
Classen J, Liepert J, Wise SP, Hallett M, Cohen LG (1998) Rapid plasticity of human cortical movement representation induced by practice. J Neurophysiol 79:1117–1123. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.19188.8.131.527
Claxton LJ, McCarty ME, Keen R (2009) Self-directed action affects planning in tool-use tasks with toddlers. Infant Behav Dev 32:230–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2008.12.004
Comalli DM, Keen R, Abraham ES, Foo VJ, Lee M, Adolph KE (2016) The development of tool use: planning for end-state comfort. Dev Psychol 52:1878–1892. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000207
Cox RFA, Smitsman AW (2006) Action planning in young children’s tool use. Dev Sci 9:628–641. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00541.x
Fagot J, Vauclair J (1991) Manual laterality in nonhuman primates: a distinction between handedness and manualspecialization. Psychol Bull 109:76–89. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.1.76
Fragaszy DM, Cummins-Sebree SE (2005) Relational spatial reasoning by a nonhuman: the example of capuchin monkeys. Behav Cogn Neurosci Rev 4:282–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534582306286573
Fragaszy DM, Eshchar Y (2017) Tool use in nonhuman primates: natural history, ontogenetic development and social supports for learning. In: Kaas JH (ed) Evolution of Nervous Systems. Academic Press, Oxford, pp 317–328
Fragaszy DM, Stone BW, Scott NM, Menzel C (2011) How tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella spp) and common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) align objects to surfaces: Insights into spatial reasoning and implications for tool use. Am J Primatol 73:1012–1030. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20966
Fragaszy DM, Kuroshima H, Stone BW (2015) “Vision for Action” in young children aligning multi-featured objects: development and comparison with nonhuman primates. PLoS ONE 10:e0140033. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140033
Frey SH, Povinelli DJ (2012) Comparative investigations of manual action representations: evidence that chimpanzees represent the costs of potential future actions involving tools. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 367:48–58. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0189
Friard O, Gamba M (2016) BORIS: a free, versatile open-source event-logging software for video/audio coding and live observations. Methods Ecol Evol 7:1325–1330. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12584
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 37:10–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020274
Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, Boston
Harris LJ, Carlson DF (1993) Hand preference for visually-guided reaching in human infants and adults. In: Ward JP, Hopkins WD (eds) Primate laterality: current behavioral evidence of primate asymmetries. Springer, New York, pp 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4370-0_13
Hopkins WD (1995) Hand preferences for a coordinated bimanual task in 110 chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): cross sectional analysis. J Comp Psychol 109:291–297. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.109.3.291
Jung WP, Kahrs BA, Lockman JJ (2015) Manual action, fitting, and spatial planning: relating objects by young children. Cognition 134:128–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.09.004
Karni A, Meyer G, Rey-Hipolito C, Jezzard P, Adams MM, Turner R, Ungerleider LG (1998) The acquisition of skilled motor performance: fast and slow experience-driven changes in primary motor cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:861–868. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.3.861
la Cour LT, Stone BW, Hopkins W, Menzel C, Fragaszy D (2014) What limits tool use in nonhuman primates? Insights from tufted capuchin monkeys (Sapajus spp) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) aligning three-dimensional objects to a surface. Anim Cogn 17:113–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-013-0643-x
Mangalam M, Fragaszy DM (2015) Wild bearded capuchin monkeys crack nuts dexterously. Curr Biol 25:1334–1339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.03.035
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 71:242–251. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20642
Manrique HM, Call J, Visalberghi E, Sabbatini G (2021) Great apes (Pan troglodytes, Pan Paniscus, Pongo abelii) exploit better the information of failure than capuchin monkeys (Sapajus spp.) when selecting tools to solve the same foraging problem. J Comp Psychol 2:10. https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000242
McCarty ME, Clifton RK, Collard RR (1999) Problem solving in infancy: The emergence of an action plan. Dev Psychol 35:1091–1101. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-16184.108.40.2061
McCarty ME, Clifton RK, Collard RR (2001) The beginnings of tool use by infants and toddlers. Infancy 2:233–256. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327078IN0202_8
Muellbacher W, Ziemann U, Boroojerdi B, Cohen L, Hallett M (2001) Role of the human motor cortex in rapid motor learning. Exp Brain Res 136:431–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002210000614
Nelson E, Berthier NE, Metevier CM, Novak MA (2011) Evidence for motor planning in monkeys: rhesus macaques select efficient grips when transporting spoons. Dev Sci 14:822–831. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01030.x
Nudo RJ, Milliken GW (1996) Reorganization of movement representations in primary motor cortex following focal ischemic infarcts in adult squirrel monkeys. J Neurophysiol 75:2144–2149. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.19220.127.116.114
Phillips KA, Thompson CR (2013) Hand preference for tool-use in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) is associated with asymmetry of the primary motor cortex. Am J Primatol 75:435–440. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.2207
Potì P (2000) Aspects of spatial cognition in capuchins (Cebus apella): frames of reference and scale of space. Anim Cogn 3:69–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100710000062
Rat-Fisher L, O’Regan JK, Fagard J (2013) Handedness in infants’ tool use. Dev Psychobiol 55:860–868. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.21078
Rosenbaum DA, Marchak F, Barnes J, Vaughan J, Slotta J, Jorgensen M (1990) Constraints for action selection: overhand versus underhand grips. In: Jeannerod M (ed) Attention and performance XIII: motor representation and control. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 321–342
Rosenbaum DA, Chapman KM, Weigelt M, Weiss DJ, van der Wel R (2012) Cognition, action, and object manipulation. Psychol Bull 138:924–946. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027839
Rosenbaum DA, Chapman KM, Coelho CJ, Gong L, Studenka BE (2013) Choosing actions. Front Psychol 4:273. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00273
Rosenbaum DA, Herbort O, Van der Wel R, Weiss DJ (2014) What’s in a grasp. Am Sci 102:366–373. https://doi.org/10.1511/2014.110.366
Sabbatini G, Truppa V, Hribar A, Gambetta B, Call J, Visalberghi E (2012) Understanding the functional properties of tools: chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) attend to tool features differently. Anim Cogn 15:577–590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-012-0486-x
Sabbatini G, Meglio G, Truppa V (2016) Motor planning in different grasping tasks by capuchin monkeys (Sapajus spp.). Behav Brain Res 312:201–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2016.06.010
Short MW, Cauraugh JH (1999) Precision hypothesis and the end-state comfort effect. Acta Psychol 100:243–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-6918(98)00020-1
Shumaker RW, Walkup KR, Beck B (2011) Animal tool behavior. The use and manufacture of tools by animals. Johns Hopkins University Press
Shutts K, Omkloo H, von Hofsten C, Keen R, Spelke ES (2009) Young children’s representations of spatial and functional relations between objects. Child Dev 80:1612–1627. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01357.x
Smitsman AW (1997) The development of tool use: changing boundaries between organism and environment. In: Dent-Read C, Zukow-Goldring P (eds) Evolving explanations of development: ecological approaches to organism–environment systems. American Psychological Association, Washington, pp 301–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/10265-008
Spinozzi G, Truppa V (1999) Hand preferences in different tasks by tufted capuchins (Cebus apella). Int J Primatol 20:827–849. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020870317124
Spinozzi G, Truppa V (2002) Problem-solving strategies and hand preferences for a multicomponent task by tufted capuchins (Cebus apella). Int J Primatol 23:621–638. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014977818853
Spinozzi G, Castorina MG, Truppa V (1998) Hand preferences in unimanual and coordinated-bimanual tasks by tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). J Comp Psychol 112:183–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.112.2.183
Spinozzi G, Truppa V, Laganà T (2004) Grasping behavior in tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella): grip types and manual laterality for picking up a small food item. Am J Phys Anthropol 125:30–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.10362
Spinozzi G, Lagana T, Truppa V (2007) Hand use by tufted capuchins (Cebus apella) to extract a small food item from a tube: digit movements, hand preference, and performance. Am J Primatol 69:336–352. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20352
Steenbergen B, Van der Kamp J, Smithsman AW, Carson RG (1997) Spoon handling in two-to-four-year-old children. Ecol Psychol 9:113–129. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326969eco0902_1
Thompson RKR, Oden DL (2000) Categorical perception and conceptual judgments by nonhuman primates: The paleological monkey and the analogical ape. Cogn Sci 24:363–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(00)00029-X
Truppa V, Mortari EP, Garofoli D, Privitera S, Visalberghi E (2011) Same/different concept learning by capuchin monkeys in matching-to-sample tasks. PLoS ONE 6:e23809. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023809
Truppa V, Spinozzi G, Laganà T, Piano Mortari E, Sabbatini G (2016) Versatile grasping ability in power-grip actions by tufted capuchin monkeys (Sapajus spp.). Am J Phys Anthropol 159:63–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22836
Truppa V, Carducci P, Sabbatini G (2019) Object grasping and manipulation in capuchin monkeys (genera Cebus and Sapajus). Biol J Linn Soc 127:563–582. https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/bly131
Truppa V, Sabbatini G, Izar P, Fragaszy DM, Visalberghi E (2020) Anticipating future actions: motor planning improves with age in wild bearded capuchin monkeys (Sapajus libidinosus). Dev Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13077
Van Hof P, Van der Kamp J, Savelsbergh GJP (2002) The relation of unimanual and bimanual reaching in crossing the midline. Child Dev 73:1353–1362. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00476
Van Leeuwen L, Smitsman AW, Van Leeuwen C (1994) Affordances, perceptual complexity, and the development of tool use. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 20:174–191. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1518.104.22.168
Visalberghi E, Limongelli L (1996) Acting and understanding: Tool use revisited through the minds of capuchin monkeys. In: Russon A, Bard K, Parker S (eds) Reaching into thought. The minds of the great apes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 57–79
Visalberghi E, Fragaszy D (2012) What is challenging about tool use? The capuchin’s perspective. In: Wasserman EA, Zentall TR (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative cognition. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 777–799. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195392661.013.0039
Visalberghi E, Sabbatini G, Taylor AH, Hunt GR (2017) Cognitive insights from tool use in nonhuman animals. In: Call J, Burghardt GM, Pepperberg IM, Snowdon CT, Zentall T (eds) APA handbook of comparative psychology: perception, learning, and cognition. American Psychological Association, Washington, pp 673–701. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000012-030
Wagman JB, Carello C (2001) Affordances and inertial constraints on tool use. Ecol Psychol 13:173–195. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326969ECO1303_1
Wagman JB, Carello C (2003) Haptically creating affordances: the user-tool interface. J Exp Psychol Appl 9:175–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898x.9.3.175
Wakita M (2008) Orientation perception in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Anim Cogn 11:535–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-008-0146-3
Wasserman E, Castro L, Fagot J (2017) Relational thinking in animals and humans: from percepts to concepts. In: Call J, Burghardt GM, Pepperberg IM, Snowdon CT, Zentall T (eds) APA handbook of comparative psychology: perception, learning, and cognition. American Psychological Association, Washington, pp 359–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000012-017
Weiss DJ, Wark JD, Rosenbaum DA (2007) Monkey see, monkey plan, monkey do. The end-state comfort effect in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus). Psychol Sci 18:1063–1068. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02026.x
Wunsch K, Henning A, Aschersleben G, Weigelt M (2013) A systematic review of the end-state comfort effect in normally developing children and in children with developmental disorders. J Motor Learn Dev 1:59–76. https://doi.org/10.1123/jmld.1.3.59
Zander SL, Judge PG (2015) Brown capuchin monkeys (Sapajus apella) plan their movements on a grasping task. J Comp Psychol 129:181–188. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038850
Zander SL, Weiss DJ, Judge PG (2013) The interface between morphology and action planning: a comparison of two species of New World monkeys. Anim Behav 86:1251–1258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.09.028
We wish to thank Massimiliano Bianchi e Simone Catarinacci, keepers of the Primate Center of ISTC-CNR in Rome, for help with animal testing, Luigi Carducci for technical support and Isabella Anastasio, Laura Petruccelli and Paola Carducci for help with data collection. We thank the Fondazione Bioparco for hosting the Primate Center where the experiments were carried out. S.P. acknowledges EVOzoica Association and G.M. acknowledges ISTC-CNR for their financial support.
S.P. received financial support from EVOzoica Association (research Grant “INCIPIT 2019/02”) and G.M. received financial support from ISTC-CNR (Grant n. ISTC.126.078.BS.25-2016).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
The research on capuchins was conducted under approval from the Italian Health Ministry (Central Direction for the Veterinary Service, approval n. DM132/2014-C to V. Truppa and n. 57/2015-PR to G. Sabbatini). The housing conditions and experimental procedures were in accordance with the EU Directive 2010/63/EU for animal experiments. Moreover, our study complies with the ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments).
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
SM1. Supplementary materials regarding the illustrations of trials administered to capuchins in Training 1 and 2, the raw data of the main results, the results about the implementation of the not fully planned actions and about the forearm postures adopted for grasping the dowel 1998 KB
About this article
Cite this article
Sabbatini, G., Pallotti, S., Meglio, G. et al. Planning actions with a magnetic tool: how initial tool orientation and number of functional ends influence motor planning abilities in capuchin monkeys (Sapajus spp.). Anim Cogn (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-021-01554-9
- Action planning
- Tool use
- Functional features
- Abstract cues
- Spatial cognition