Sequential tool use in great apes.

Gema Martin-Ordas, Lena Schumacher, Josep Call
Author Information
  1. Gema Martin-Ordas: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany. ordas@psy.au.dk

Abstract

Sequential tool use is defined as using a tool to obtain another non-food object which subsequently itself will serve as a tool to act upon a further (sub)goal. Previous studies have shown that birds and great apes succeed in such tasks. However, the inclusion of a training phase for each of the sequential steps and the low cost associated with retrieving the longest tools limits the scope of the conclusions. The goal of the experiments presented here was, first to replicate a previous study on sequential tool use conducted on New Caledonian crows and, second, extend this work by increasing the cost of retrieving a tool in order to test tool selectivity of apes. In Experiment 1, we presented chimpanzees, orangutans and bonobos with an out-of-reach reward, two tools that were available but too short to reach the food and four out-of-reach tools differing in functionality. Similar to crows, apes spontaneously used up to 3 tools in sequence to get the reward and also showed a strong preference for the longest out-of reach tool independently of the distance of the food. In Experiment 2, we increased the cost of reaching for the longest out-of reach tool. Now apes used up to 5 tools in sequence to get the reward and became more selective in their choice of the longest tool as the costs of its retrieval increased. The findings of the studies presented here contribute to the growing body of comparative research on tool use.

References

  1. Learn Behav. 2012 Dec;40(4):494-506 [PMID: 22371120]
  2. Behav Brain Sci. 1998 Oct;21(5):667-84; discussion 684-721 [PMID: 10097023]
  3. Science. 2010 Apr 30;328(5978):579-80 [PMID: 20431004]
  4. PLoS One. 2009 Aug 05;4(8):e6471 [PMID: 19654861]
  5. Am J Primatol. 1993;31(4):241-261 [PMID: 31936992]
  6. Proc Biol Sci. 2010 Sep 7;277(1694):2637-43 [PMID: 20410040]
  7. Learn Behav. 2010 Feb;38(1):87-95 [PMID: 20065352]
  8. Anim Cogn. 2006 Jul;9(3):193-9 [PMID: 16612632]
  9. Anim Cogn. 2005 Oct;8(4):236-46 [PMID: 15668762]
  10. J Comp Psychol (Baltim). 1945;38:295-317 [PMID: 21005111]
  11. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2009 Jan;35(1):23-34 [PMID: 19159160]
  12. Nature. 1984 Mar 1-7;308(5954):61-2 [PMID: 6700713]
  13. Science. 2004 Dec 10;306(5703):1903-7 [PMID: 15591194]
  14. J Comp Psychol. 2005 Feb;119(1):23-32 [PMID: 15740427]
  15. Physiol Behav. 2003 Mar;78(3):427-34 [PMID: 12676278]
  16. Curr Biol. 2007 Sep 4;17(17):1504-7 [PMID: 17702575]
  17. Curr Biol. 2009 Aug 25;19(16):1410-4 [PMID: 19664926]
  18. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2008 Jan;34(1):54-62 [PMID: 18248114]
  19. Anim Cogn. 2002 Jun;5(2):71-8 [PMID: 12150038]

MeSH Term

Animals
Choice Behavior
Decision Making
Female
Food
Hominidae
Male
Problem Solving
Tool Use Behavior

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0toolapestoolsuselongestcostpresentedrewardreachSequentialgoalstudiesgreatsequentialretrievingcrowsExperimentout-of-reachfoodusedsequencegetout-ofincreaseddefinedusingobtainanothernon-foodobjectsubsequentlywillserveactuponsubPreviousshownbirdssucceedtasksHoweverinclusiontrainingphasestepslowassociatedlimitsscopeconclusionsexperimentsfirstreplicatepreviousstudyconductedNewCaledoniansecondextendworkincreasingordertestselectivity1chimpanzeesorangutansbonobostwoavailableshortfourdifferingfunctionalitySimilarspontaneously3alsoshowedstrongpreferenceindependentlydistance2reachingNow5becameselectivechoicecostsretrievalfindingscontributegrowingbodycomparativeresearch

Similar Articles

Cited By