Tubes, tables and traps: great apes solve two functionally equivalent trap tasks but show no evidence of transfer across tasks

Previous studies on tool using have shown that presenting subjects with certain modifications in the experimental setup can substantially improve their performance. However, procedural modifications (e.g. trap table task) may not only remove task constraints but also simplify the problem conceptually. The goal of this study was to design a variation of the trap-table that was functionally equivalent to the trap-tube task. In this new task, the subjects had to decide where to insert the tool and in which direction the reward should be pushed. We also administered a trap-tube task that allowed animals to push or rake the reward with the tool to compare the subjects’ performance on both tasks. We used a larger sample of subjects than in previous studies and from all the four species of great apes (Gorilla gorilla, Pan troglodytes, Pan paniscus, and Pongo pygmaeus). The results showed that apes performed better in the trap-platform task than in the trap-tube task. Subjects solved the tube task faster than in previous studies and they also preferred to rake in rather than to push the reward out. There was no correlation in the level of performance between both tasks, and no indication of interspecies differences. These data are consistent with the idea that apes may possess some specific causal knowledge of traps but may lack the ability to establish analogical relations between functional equivalent tasks.

[1]  W. Köhler The Mentality of Apes. , 2018, Nature.

[2]  B. Beck Animal Tool Behavior: The Use and Manufacture of Tools by Animals , 1980 .

[3]  E. Visalberghi,et al.  Lack of comprehension of cause-effect relations in tool-using capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). , 1994, Journal of comparative psychology.

[4]  Sarah T. Boysen,et al.  Comprehension of Cause-Effect Relations in a Tool-Using Task by Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) , 1995 .

[5]  D. Gentner,et al.  Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. , 1997 .

[6]  Jackie Chappell,et al.  Tool selectivity in a non-primate, the New Caledonian crow (Corvus moneduloides) , 2002, Animal Cognition.

[7]  Hika Kuroshima,et al.  How do tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) understand causality involved in tool use? , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[8]  D. Povinelli Folk physics for apes : the chimpanzee's theory of how the world works , 2003 .

[9]  S. Tebbich,et al.  Cognitive abilities related to tool use in the woodpecker finch, Cactospiza pallida , 2004, Animal Behaviour.

[10]  Kathleen M. Silva,et al.  Methodological-conceptual problems in the study of chimpanzees’ folk physics: How studies with adult humans can help , 2005, Learning & behavior.

[11]  Laurie R Santos,et al.  Probing the limits of tool competence: Experiments with two non-tool-using species (Cercopithecus aethiops and Saguinus oedipus) , 2006, Animal Cognition.

[12]  D. Gentner Analogical Reasoning, Psychology of , 2006 .

[13]  Nicholas J. Mulcahy,et al.  How great apes perform on a modified trap-tube task , 2006, Animal Cognition.

[14]  N. Emery,et al.  Investigating Physical Cognition in Rooks, Corvus frugilegus , 2006, Current Biology.

[15]  James R. Anderson,et al.  Object manipulation to obtain a food reward in hoolock gibbons, Bunopithecus hoolock , 2006, Animal Behaviour.

[16]  Nicola S. Clayton,et al.  Non-tool-using rooks, Corvus frugilegus, solve the trap-tube problem , 2007, Animal Cognition.

[17]  Josep Call,et al.  What do bonobos (Pan paniscus) understand about physical contact? , 2006, Journal of comparative psychology.

[18]  F. Natale,et al.  Development of tool use in a macaque and a gorilla , 1988, Primates.

[19]  J. Call,et al.  Task constraints mask great apes' ability to solve the trap-table task. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.