title: 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.
abstract: This report addresses phylogenetic variation in a spatial skill that underlies tool use: aligning objects to a feature of a surface. Fragaszy and Cummins-Sebree's [Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews 4:282-306, 2005] model of relational spatial reasoning and Skill Development and Perception-Action theories guided the design of the study. We examined how capuchins and chimpanzees place stick objects of varying shapes into matching grooves on a flat surface. Although most individuals aligned the long axis of the object with the matching groove more often than expected by chance, all typically did so with poor precision. Some individuals managed to align a second feature, and only one (a capuchin monkey) achieved above-chance success at aligning three features with matching grooves. Our findings suggest that capuchins and chimpanzees do not reliably align objects along even one axis, and that neither species can reliably or easily master object placement tasks that require managing two or more spatial relations concurrently. Moreover, they did not systematically vary their behavior in a manner that would aid discovery of the affordances of the stick-surface combination beyond sliding the stick along the surface (which may have provided haptic information about the location of the groove). These limitations have profound consequences for the forms of tool use we can expect these individuals to master.
authors: University of Georgia, Athens. dfragaszy@gmail.com
authors: Dorothy M
authors: DM
authors: Fragaszy
authors: Brian W
authors: BW
authors: Stone
authors: Nicole M
authors: NM
authors: Scott
authors: Charles
authors: C
authors: Menzel
references: Folia Primatol (Basel). 1970;12(4):273-83
references: 5438788
references: Child Dev. 2000 Jan-Feb;71(1):137-44
references: 10836567
references: Laterality. 1997;2(3-4):247-66
references: 15513067
references: Nature. 2009 Jul 16;460(7253):339-44
references: 19606139
references: Dev Sci. 2009 Jul;12(4):536-48
references: 19635081
references: Exp Brain Res. 2005 Sep;166(1):1-16
references: 16132966
references: Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2007 Nov;82(4):591-605
references: 17944619
references: J Hum Evol. 2007 Apr;52(4):420-33
references: 17194468
references: J Comp Psychol. 1997 Jun;111(2):159-73
references: 9170281
references: Cogn Neuropsychol. 2008 Oct;25(7):1099-113
references: 18726788
references: J Comp Psychol. 1999 Jun;113(2):137-48
references: 10384722
references: Psychol Sci. 2007 Dec;18(12):1063-8
references: 18031413
references: Am J Phys Anthropol. 2009 Mar;138(3):274-85
references: 18802939
references: Anim Cogn. 2009 Oct;12 Suppl 1:S49-58
references: 19672637
references: Psychol Bull. 2007 Jul;133(4):625-37
references: 17592958
references: Behav Cogn Neurosci Rev. 2005 Dec;4(4):282-306
references: 16585801
references: Infant Behav Dev. 2009 Apr;32(2):230-3
references: 19185350
references: Sci Am. 1960 Sep;203:63-75
references: 13843002
references: Child Dev. 2001 Jul-Aug;72(4):973-87
references: 11480949
references: Am J Primatol. 2009 Mar;71(3):242-51
references: 19051323
references: Folia Primatol (Basel). 1972;17(1):87-106
references: 5029943
references: Dev Psychol. 2003 May;39(3):594-605
references: 12760526
references: Behav Brain Res. 2008 Aug 5;191(1):1-10
references: 18423906