Delayed figure reconstruction by a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens).

A chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) was trained to construct a copy of 3-element compound figures from a set of 9 elements. Delay intervals between sample offset and element presentation varied. The chimpanzee maintained accuracy at about 80% correct for a delay of 32 s, which was slightly higher than the mean of 4 human (Homo sapiens) Ss. Excellent visual reproductive memory in the chimpanzee as compared with that in humans was demonstrated. However, the nature of the reproductive memory was different in the 2 species in that humans better constructed meaningful figures, which represented food items, than meaningless ones, whereas the chimpanzee constructed these 2 types of figures with the same accuracy. This outcome suggests that the reproductive memory for meaningful figures of the chimpanzee may have been processed separately from symbolic processes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Imitative learning of artificial fruit processing in children (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes).

Observational learning in chimpanzees and young children was investigated using an artificial fruit designed as an analog of natural foraging problems faced by primates. Each of 3 principal components could be removed in 2 alternative ways, demonstration of only one of which was watched by each subject. This permitted subsequent imitation by subjects to be distinguished from stimulus enhancement. Children aged 2–4 years evidenced imitation for 2 components, but also achieved demonstrated outcomes through their own techniques. Chimpanzees relied even more on their own techniques, but they did imitate elements of 1 component of the task. To our knowledge, this is the first experimental evidence of chimpanzee imitation in a functional task designed to simulate foraging behavior hypothesized to be transmitted culturally in the wild. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Global and local processing in humans (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): Use of a visual search task with compound stimuli.

This research assessed the visual processing of the global and local stimulus features in humans and chimpanzees. In Experiment 1, participants were tested with compound stimuli presented in a visual search task. There was an advantage to process the global stimulus level in humans but not in chimpanzees. The global size and the density of the local elements were manipulated in Experiment 2. Humans showed an overall advantage for processing the global shape. Chimpanzees showed an advantage for processing the local shape in the low-density condition but showed no advantage in the dense conditions. In Experiment 3, chimpanzees showed a global advantage when line segments connected the local elements and a local one when the lines were removed. Together, these results suggest a phylogenetic trend in the way compound stimuli are processed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Processes of social learning in the tool use of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and human children (Homo sapiens).

Common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and 2-yr-old human children (Homo sapiens) were presented with a rakelike tool and a desirable but out-of-reach object. One group of Ss observed a human demonstrator use the tool in one way, and another group observed a demonstrator use the tool in another way. Children in both cases did what the model did. Chimpanzee Ss, however, behaved identically in the 2 model conditions. Both groups performed better than Ss who saw no demonstration. This pattern of results suggests that the chimpanzees were paying attention to the general functional relations in the task and to the results obtained by the demonstrator but not to the actual methods of tool use demonstrated. Human children were focused on the demonstrator's actual methods of tool use (i.e., her behavior). The different social learning processes used by the 2 species have implications for their different forms of social organization. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Indexical and referential pointing in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes).

The spontaneous index finger and other referential pointing in 3 adult, laboratory chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) who have not received language training is reported. Of 256 total observed points, 254 were emitted in the presence of a human to objects in the environment; therefore, the points were communicative. Indicators of intentional communication used by the subjects included attention-getting behaviors, gaze alternation, and persistence until reward. Thus, pointing by these chimpanzees was intentionally communicative. These data imply that perspective-taking and referential communication are generalized hominoid traits, given appropriate eliciting contexts. Index finger pointing was more frequent with the subjects' dominant hands. This study refutes claims that indexical or referential pointing is species-unique to humans or dependent on linguistic competence or explicit training. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Object permanence in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and children (Homo sapiens).

Juvenile and adult orangutans (n?=?5; Pongo pygmaeus), chimpanzees (n?=?7; Pan troglodytes), and 19- and 26-month-old children (n?=?24; Homo sapiens) received visible and invisible displacements. Three containers were presented forming a straight line, and a small box was used to displace a reward under them. Subjects received 3 types of displacement: single (the box visited 1 container), double adjacent (the box visited 2 contiguous containers), and double nonadjacent (the box visited 2 noncontiguous containers). All species performed at comparable levels, solving all problems except the invisible nonadjacent displacements. Visible displacements were easier than invisible, and single were easier than double displacements. In a 2nd experiment, subjects saw the baiting of either 2 adjacent or 2 nonadjacent containers with no displacements. All species selected the empty container more often when the baited containers were nonadjacent than when they were adjacent. It is hypothesized that a response bias and inhibition problem were responsible for the poor performance in nonadjacent displacements. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Perception of complex geometric figures in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens): Analyses of visual similarity on the basis of choice reaction time.

In a conditional-discrimination task (matching-to-sample), assessed similarities among figures consisting of 2 elemental figures through the choice reaction time (RT), nonmetric multidimensional scaling, and hierarchical cluster analysis of data from chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens). Humans also rated similarities among figures. The results of the 3 experiments clearly indicated that the RT data obtained from chimpanzees' performances were useful measures of the similarities among figures. The results suggested that chimpanzees and humans perceived the complex figures similarly. The outer-contour elements were perceived most dominantly by both species, and the straight-line elements were perceived least dominantly. Both species showed the same perceptual hierarchy or dominance among perceptual categories, as determined by the similarity of simple elements, on the basis of transformational invariances. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

What meaning means for same and different: Analogical reasoning in humans (Homo sapiens), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta).

Thus far, language- and token-trained apes (e.g., D. Premack, 1976; R. K. R. Thompson, D. L. Oden, & S. T. Boysen, 1997) have provided the best evidence that nonhuman animals can solve, complete, and construct analogies, thus implicating symbolic representation as the mechanism enabling the phenomenon. In this study, the authors examined the role of stimulus meaning in the analogical reasoning abilities of three different primate species. Humans (Homo sapiens), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) completed the same relational matching-to-sample (RMTS) tasks with both meaningful and nonmeaningful stimuli. This discrimination of relations-between-relations serves as the basis for analogical reasoning. Meaningfulness facilitated the acquisition of analogical matching for human participants, whereas individual differences among the chimpanzees suggest that meaning can either enable or hinder their ability to complete analogies. Rhesus monkeys did not succeed in the RMTS task regardless of stimulus meaning, suggesting that their ability to reason analogically, if present at all, may be dependent on a dimension other than the representational value of stimuli. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Perceived differences between chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and human (Homo sapiens) facial expressions are related to emotional interpretation.

Human face perception is a finely tuned, specialized process. When comparing faces between species, therefore, it is essential to consider how people make these observational judgments. Comparing facial expressions may be particularly problematic, given that people tend to consider them categorically as emotional signals, which may affect how accurately specific details are processed. The bared-teeth display (BT), observed in most primates, has been proposed as a homologue of the human smile (J. A. R. A. M. van Hooff, 1972). In this study, judgments of similarity between BT displays of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and human smiles varied in relation to perceived emotional valence. When a chimpanzee BT was interpreted as fearful, observers tended to underestimate the magnitude of the relationship between certain features (the extent of lip corner raise) and human smiles. These judgments may reflect the combined effects of categorical emotional perception, configural face processing, and perceptual organization in mental imagery and may demonstrate the advantages of using standardized observational methods in comparative facial expression research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Do Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and 2-Year-Old Children (Homo sapiens) Understand Double Invisible Displacement?

Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and young children (Homo sapiens) have difficulty with double invisible displacements in which an object is hidden in two nonadjacent boxes in a linear array. Experiment 1 eliminated the possibility that chimpanzees' previous poor performance was due to the hiding direction of the displacement device. As in Call (2001), subjects failed double nonadjacent displacements, showing a tendency to select adjacent boxes. In Experiments 2 and 3, chimpanzees and 24-month-old children were tested on a new adaptation of the task in which four hiding boxes were presented in a diamond-shaped array on a vertical plane. Both species performed above chance on double invisible displacements using this format, suggesting that previous poor performance was due to a response bias or inhibition problem rather than a fundamental limitation in representational capacity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Learning from others' mistakes? Limits on understanding a trap-tube task by young chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children (Homo sapiens).

A trap-tube task was used to determine whether chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children (Homo sapiens) who observed a model's errors and successes could master the task in fewer trials than those who saw only successes. Two- to 7-year-old chimpanzees and 3- to 4-year-old children did not benefit from observing errors and found the task difficult. Two of the 6 chimpanzees developed a successful anticipatory strategy but showed no evidence of representing the core causal relations involved in trapping. Three- to 4-year-old children showed a similar limitation and tended to copy the actions of the demonstrator, irrespective of their causal relevance. Five- to 6-year-old children were able to master the task but did not appear to be influenced by social learning or benefit from observing errors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Differential use of vocal and gestural communication by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in response to the attentional status of a human (Homo sapiens).

This study examined the communicative behavior of 49 captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), particularly their use of vocalizations, manual gestures, and other auditory- or tactile-based behaviors as a means of gaining an inattentive audience's attention. A human (Homo sapiens) experimenter held a banana while oriented either toward or away from the chimpanzee. The chimpanzees' behavior was recorded for 60 s. Chimpanzees emitted vocalizations faster and were more likely to produce vocalizations as their 1st communicative behavior when a human was oriented away from them. Chimpanzees used manual gestures more frequently and faster when the human was oriented toward them. These results replicate the findings of earlier studies on chimpanzee gestural communication and provide new information about the intentional and functional use of their vocalizations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Birth order and hand preference in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): Implications for pathological models of handedness in humans.

The effect of birth order on hand preference was assessed in a sample of 154 captive-born chimpanzees. Subjects were classified as first, middle, or latter born using 2 classification criteria based on their birth order. Hand preference was measured using a task that elicited coordinated bimanual actions. Significant birth-order effects were found for both classification criteria, with first- and latter-born subjects exhibiting a lesser degree of right-handedness compared with middle-born subjects. These data suggest that biological rather than sociological factors play a greater role in explaining the observed birth-order effects on hand preference in humans. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Recent use of signs by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in interactions with humans.

In light of the controversy about the linguistic properties of chimpanzee signing behavior, the recent sign use of 5 chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) with long histories of sign use was analyzed while they interacted with longtime human companions. Four corpora from 1992 to 1999 consisting of 3,448 sign utterances were examined. The chimpanzees predominantly used object and action signs. There was no evidence for semantic or syntactic structure in combinations of signs. Longer combinations showed repetition and stringing of object and action signs. The chimpanzees mostly signed with an acquisitive motivation. Requests for objects and actions were the predominant communicative intentions of the sign utterances, though naming and answering also occurred. This recent sign use shows multiple differences with (early) human language. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Trading behavior between conspecifics in chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes.

Bartering of commodities between individuals is a hallmark of human behavior that is not commonly seen in other species. This is difficult to explain because barter is mutually beneficial and appears to be within the cognitive capabilities of many species. It may be that other species do not recognize the gains of trade, or that they do not experience conditions (e.g., low risk) in which barter is most beneficial. To answer these questions, the authors instituted a systematic study of chimpanzees’ ability to barter with each other when doing so materially benefited them. Using tokens derived from symbols they had used since infancy, pairs of adult chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) could trade between themselves to obtain tokens needed to get foods. Chimpanzees flexibly used the tokens to obtain foods from an experimenter; however, they did not spontaneously trade with their partner. After extensive training, chimpanzees engaged in accurate trade behavior as long as an experimenter enforced the structure of the interaction; however, trade between partners disappeared when this enforcement was removed. The authors discuss possible reasons for these findings as well as implications for the evolution of barter across the primate lineage. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Use of experimenter-given cues during object-choice tasks by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), an orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus), and human infants (Homo sapiens).

In a series of experiments, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), an orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus), and human infants (Homo sapiens) were investigated as to whether they used experimenter-given cues when responding to object-choice tasks. Five conditions were used in different phases: the experimenter tapping on the correct object, gazing plus pointing, gazing closely, gazing alone, and glancing without head orientation. The 3 subject species were able to use all of the experimenter-given cues, in contrast to previous reports of limited use of such cues by monkeys. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A vocabulary test for chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes).

Presented a vocabulary test to 4 cross-fostered chimpanzees (4–6 years old) who had learned some American Sign Language (ASL) in the laboratory. 35 mm color slides were projected on a screen that could be seen by the chimpanzee Ss but not by the human observers. There were 2 observers: 01 was the questioner in the testing room with the Ss; 02 was in a different room. Neither observer could see the other, or the responses of the other observer. 01 and 02 agreed in their readings of both correct and incorrect signs, and most of the signs were the correct ASL names of the slides. To show that the chimpanzees were naming natural language categories—that the sign DOG could refer to any dog, FLOWER to any flower, SHOE to any shoe—each test trial was a 1st trial, in that test slides were presented only once. Analysis of errors showed that 2 aspects of the signs, gestural form and conceptual category, governed the distribution of errors. (64 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

How cross-fostered chimpanzees ( Pan troglodytes ) initiate and maintain conversations.

This study systematically sampled typical attention-getting sounds and sign language conversations between each of 4 originally cross-fostered chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), still living freely, but now in a laboratory setting, and a familiar human interlocutor. Videotape records showed that when they encountered a human interlocutor sitting alone at his desk with his back turned to them, the crossfosterlings either left the scene or made attention-getting sounds. The only signs they made to the interlocutor's back were noisy signs. When the human turned and faced them, the chimpanzees promptly signed to him (98% of the time) and rarely made any sounds during the ensuing signed conversations. Under systematic experimental conditions, the signed responses of the chimpanzees were appropriate to the conversational styles of the human interlocutor, confirming daily field observations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Manual laterality in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in complex tasks.

To determine the manual laterality of a sample of 24 chimpanzees, 4 problem apparatuses were used, the solution for which (obtaining a food item) required the use of 1 or both hands in sequential, simultaneous, or both sequential and simultaneous actions. The majority of the subjects showed significant and consistent hand preferences, especially in the actions that required a precision grip. The results obtained suggest the existence of factors linked to the specific characteristics of the task to be performed and to the ontogenetic maturation of the subject, which would influence the directionality and degree of the hand preference displayed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)