Cognitive imitation in rhesus macaques

Science

Volumn 305, Issue 5682, 2004, Pages 407-410

  Subiaul, Francys ^a   Cantlon, Jessica F ^b   Holloway, Ralph L ^a   Terrace, Herbert S ^a,c  

^a Columbia University ^*  (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NEW YORK STATE PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; EVALUATION; NEUROLOGY; PHOTOINTERPRETATION; STUDENTS;

MOTOR ACTION; RHESUS MONKEYS;

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS;

COGNITION; IMITATION; LEARNING; PRIMATE;

ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; CONTROLLED STUDY; EYE HAND COORDINATION; LEARNING; LOCOMOTION; MALE; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS DEVELOPMENT; RHESUS MONKEY; SOCIAL INTERACTION; TASK PERFORMANCE; TRAINING;

ANIMALS; COGNITION; IMITATIVE BEHAVIOR; LEARNING; MACACA MULATTA; MALE;

ANIMALIA; MACACA; MACACA MULATTA; PRIMATES;

EID: 3142727694     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1099136     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. E. Thorndike, Psychol. Rev. Monogr. Suppl. 2, 79 (1898).
2. W. Thorpe, Learning and Instinct in Animals (Methuen, London, 1956), p. 122.
3. B. Galef, in Social Learning: Psychological and Biological Perspectives, T. Zentall, B. Galef, Eds. (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988), pp. 3-28.
4. M. Tomasello, J. Call, Primate Cognition (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1997).
5. A. Whiten, R. Ham, in Advances in the Study of Behavior, P. Slater, J. Rosenblatt, C. Beer, M. Milinsky, Eds. (Academic Press, New York, 1992), vol. 21, pp. 239-283.
6. H. Terrace, in Animal Cognition, H. Roitblat, T. Bever, H. Terrace, Eds. (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1984), pp. 7-28.
7. H. Terrace, in Quantitative Analyses of Behavior: Discrimination Processes, M. Commons, R. Herrnstein, A. Wagner, Eds. (Ballinger, Cambridge, MA, 1984), pp. 115-138.
8. H. Terrace, L. K. Son, E. Brannon, Psychol. Sci. 14, 66 (2003).
9. See supporting data at Science Online.
10. D. Clayton, Q. Rev. Biol. 53, 373 (1978).
11. R. B. Zajonc, Science 149, 106 (1965).
12. Stimulus, local enhancement, and social facilitation are terms that refer to specific instances of individual learning that are triggered by the activity of a conspecific. Stimulus and local enhancement occur because the model's behavior attracts an onlooker's attention toward some object or some activity in a location. Social enhancement refers to an increase in attention and motivation when engaged in a task that occurs in the presence of another individual. Without experimental controls, it is unclear whether the onlooker who later approaches and interacts with the object in ques tion copied the model's action, or instead learned to produce the same behavior by individual trial-and-error learning, Observers may also learn about the causal structure of actions by observing a model. For example, an individual who watches a model use a rake to reach a food item may learn that the rake may be used to attain out-of-reach food, but not that there is a specific technique for using rakes. This mode of social learning, where subjects learn the causal relationship between an object (e.g., a tool) and a desired outcome (e.g., food), has been described as the "emulation of affordances" or emulation learning (4). However, Whiten and Ham (5) have argued that individuals in these studies may be copying the goals of the model (not necessarily their specific techniques). As a result, these authors prefer to call this mechanism "goal emulation."
13. Both Horatio and Oberon each served as a "student" and as an "expert." Experts were trained in isolation (with the partition dividing the two chambers) until they completed at least 65% of the trials correctly during two consecutive sessions.
14. A. Whiten, J. Comp. Psychol. 112, 270 (1998).
15. A. Whiten, D. M. Custance, J. C. Gomez, P. Teixidor, K. A. Bard, J. Comp. Psychol. 110, 3 (1996).
16. H. Tomasello, E. S. Savage-Rumbaugh, A. C. Kruger, Child Dev. 64, 1688 (1993).
17. K. Nagell, R. Olguin, H. Tomasello, J. Comp. Psychol. 107, 174 (1993).
18. R. Byrne, A. Russon, Behav. Brain Sci. 21, 667 (1998).
19. C. Heyes, Trends Cognit. Sci. 5, 253 (2001).
20. M. Tomasello, M. Davis-Dasilva, L. Camak, K. Bard, Hum. Evol. 2, 175 (1987).
21. E. Visalberghi, D. Fragaszy, in "Language" and intelligence in Monkeys and Apes, S. Parker, K. Gibson, Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1990), pp. 247-273.
22. E. Visalberghl, M. Tomasello, Behav. Process. 42, 189 (1998).
23. M. Hauser, in Machiavellian Intelligence, R. Byrne, A. Whiten, Eds. (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1988), pp. 327-343.
24. M. Tomasello, in "Language" and Intelligence in Monkeys and Apes, S. Parker, K. Gibson, Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1990), pp. 274-311.
25. A. Whiten, in The Imitative Mind: Development, Evolution, and Brain Bases, A. Meltzoff, W. Prinz, Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2002), pp. 98-121.
26. R. Byrne, in The Imitative Mind: Development, Evolution, and Brain Bases, A. Meltzoff, W. Prinz, Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2002), pp. 123-140.
27. G. Gergely, H. Bekkering, I. Kiraly, Nature 415, 755 (2002).
28. G. Rizzolatti, L. Fadiga, Novartis Found. Symp. 218, 81 (1998).
29. T. Jellema, C. Baker, B. Wicker, D. Perrett, Brain Cogn. 44, 280 (2000).
30. We thank all the members of the Primate Cognition Lab for their assistance. Supported by National Institute of Mental Health grant R01 MH40462 (H.S.T.).