Piagetian conservation of discrete quantities in bonobos (Pan paniscus), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus)

Defining value through quantity and quality-Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) undervalue food quantities when items are broken

Decision-making largely is influenced by the relative value of choice options, and the value of such options can be determined by a combination of different factors (e.g., the quantity, size, or quality of a stimulus). In this study, we examined the competing influences of quantity (i.e., the number of food items in a set) and quality (i.e., the original state of a food item) of choice items on chimpanzees' food preferences in a two-option natural choice paradigm. In Experiment 1, chimpanzees chose between sets of food items that were either entirely whole or included items that were broken into pieces before being shown to the chimpanzees. Chimpanzees exhibited a bias for whole food items even when such choice options consisted of a smaller overall quantity of food than the sets containing broken items. In Experiment 2, chimpanzees chose between sets of entirely whole food items and sets of initially whole items that were subsequently broken in view of the chimpanzees just before choice time. Chimpanzees continued to exhibit a bias for sets of whole items. In Experiment 3, chimpanzees chose between sets of new food items that were initially discrete but were subsequently transformed into a larger cohesive unit. Here, chimpanzees were biased to choose the discrete sets that retained their original qualitative state rather than toward the cohesive or clumped sets. These results demonstrate that beyond a food set's quantity (i.e., the value dimension that accounts for maximization in terms of caloric intake), other seemingly non-relevant features (i.e., quality in terms of a set's original state) affect how chimpanzees assign value to their choice options.

Chimpanzees sometimes see fuller as better: judgments of food quantities based on container size and fullness

The context in which food is presented can alter quantity judgments leading to sub-optimal choice behavior. Humans often over-estimate food quantity on the basis of how food is presented. Food appears larger if plated on smaller dishes than larger dishes and liquid volumes appear larger in taller cups than shorter cups. Moreover, smaller but fuller containers are preferred in comparison to larger, but less full containers with a truly larger quantity. Here, we assessed whether similar phenomena occur in chimpanzees. Four chimpanzees chose between two amounts of food presented in different sized containers, a large (2 oz.) and small (1 oz.) cup. When different quantities were presented in the same-sized cups or when the small cup contained the larger quantity, chimpanzees were highly accurate in choosing the larger food amount. However, when different-sized cups contained the same amount of food or the smaller cup contained the smaller amount of food (but looked relatively fuller), the chimpanzees often showed a bias to select the smaller but fuller cup. These findings contribute to our understanding of how quantity estimation and portion judgment is impacted by the surrounding context in which it is presented.

When less is more: like humans, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) misperceive food amounts based on plate size

We investigated whether chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) misperceived food portion sizes depending upon the context in which they were presented, something that often affects how much humans serve themselves and subsequently consume. Chimpanzees judged same-sized and smaller food portions to be larger in amount when presented on a small plate compared to an equal or larger food portion presented on a large plate and did so despite clearly being able to tell the difference in portions when plate size was identical. These results are consistent with data from the human literature in which people misperceive food portion sizes as a function of plate size. This misperception is attributed to the Delboeuf illusion which occurs when the size of a central item is misperceived on the basis of its surrounding context. These results demonstrate a cross-species shared visual misperception of portion size that affects choice behavior, here in a nonhuman species for which there is little experience with tests that involve choosing between food amounts on dinnerware. The biases resulting in this form of misperception of food portions appear to have a deep-rooted evolutionary history which we share with, at minimum, our closest living nonhuman relative, the chimpanzee.

What counts for 'counting'? Chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes, respond appropriately to relevant and irrelevant information in a quantity judgment task

Nonhuman animals quantify all manner of things, and the way in which this is done is fairly well understood. However, little research has been conducted to determine how they know what is or is not relevant in the instances in which they quantify stimuli. We assessed how four chimpanzees chose between two sets of food items when the items were distributed across separate spatial arrays. Each item was covered by a container, and then was revealed in sequence so that neither whole set was visible at one time. After all containers were revealed, some were revealed again. The chimpanzees should have ignored items that were seen a second time and instead enumerated each item only once. In another test, some of the items were transposed in location and then uncovered again. Here, the chimpanzees needed to recognize that the newly shown food items were ones they already had seen. Overall, the chimpanzees were successful in selecting the truly larger array of items despite these potential distracting re-presentations of items. Discrimination performance also reflected analogue magnitude estimation because comparisons of sets that differed by larger amounts were easier than comparisons that differed by smaller amounts. Thus, chimpanzee quantity judgments for nonvisible sets of items are inexact, but they include an aspect of control for determining when items are uniquely presented versus re-presented.

1 < 2 and 2 < 3: non-linguistic appreciations of numerical order

Ordinal understanding is involved in understanding social hierarchies, series of actions, and everyday events. Moreover, an appreciation of numerical order is critical to understanding number at a highly abstract, conceptual level. In this paper, we review findings concerning the development and expression of ordinal numerical knowledge in preverbal human infants in light of literature about the same cognitive abilities in non-human animals. We attempt to reconcile seemingly contradictory evidence, provide new directions for prospective research, and evaluate the shared basis of ordinal knowledge among non-verbal organisms. Our review of the research leads us to conclude that both infants and non-human animals are adapted to respond to monotonic progressions in numerical order, consonant with mathematical definitions of numerical order. Further, we suggest that patterns in the way that infants and non-human animals process numerical order can be accounted for by changes across development, the conditions under which representations are generated, or both.

Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) accurately compare poured liquid quantities

Although many studies have shown that nonhuman animals can choose the larger of two discrete quantities of items, less emphasis has been given to discrimination of continuous quantity. These studies are necessary to discern the similarities and differences in discrimination performance as a function of the type of quantities that are compared. Chimpanzees made judgments between continuous quantities (liquids) in a series of three experiments. In the first experiment, chimpanzees first chose between two clear containers holding differing amounts of juice. Next, they watched as two liquid quantities were dispensed from opaque syringes held above opaque containers. In the second experiment, one liquid amount was presented by pouring it into an opaque container from an opaque syringe, whereas the other quantity was visible the entire time in a clear container. In the third experiment, the heights at which the opaque syringes were held above opaque containers differed for each set, so that sometimes sets with smaller amounts of juice were dropped from a greater height, providing a possible visual illusion as to the total amount. Chimpanzees succeeded in all tasks and showed many similarities in their continuous quantity estimation to how they performed previously in similar tasks with discrete quantities (for example, performance was constrained by the ratio between sets). Chimpanzees could compare visible sets to nonvisible sets, and they were not distracted by perceptual illusions created through various presentation styles that were not relevant to the actual amount of juice dispensed. This performance demonstrated a similarity in the quantitative discrimination skills of chimpanzees for continuous quantities that matches that previously shown for discrete quantities.

Perception of food amounts by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): the role of magnitude, contiguity, and wholeness

The authors investigated choice behavior by chimpanzees in five experiments involving choices between different amounts of food. Chimpanzees did not maximize the amount of food they obtained when choosing between a single 20-g banana piece and another option containing a 20-g piece and a 5-g piece. This was true even though they successfully discriminated between 20-g and 25-g banana pieces in other trials. When items in the mixed option were stacked, however, the chimpanzees chose the larger amount. Later experiments indicated that changing the magnitude of the two amounts did not change performance if the difference in magnitude between the two options remained the same (e.g., 40 g plus 10 g vs. 40 g). However, chimpanzees did improve when the two-item option was increased in its magnitude relative to the single slice (e.g., 20 g plus 10 g vs. 20 g). These results indicated that chimpanzees undervalued the total amount of food in sets when items differed in size and did not appear to be whole. Another experiment confirmed that it was this notion of wholeness that evoked suboptimal responding because chimpanzees were successful in the same comparisons with a different type of food that appeared less fractionated when presented as two pieces. These results provide evidence of suboptimal responding in some natural choice situations that prevents chimpanzees from maximizing food intake.

Natural Choice in Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): Perceptual and Temporal Effects on Selective Value

In three experiments, four chimpanzees made choices between two visible food options to assess the validity of the selective value effect (the assignment of value to only the most preferred type of food presented in a comparison). In Experiment 1, we established that all chimpanzees preferred single banana pieces to single apple pieces before presenting the critical test. In this test two chimpanzees preferred a mix of one banana piece and one apple piece to a single banana piece when both banana piece were approximately the same size, but two chimpanzees were indifferent between the two options, exhibiting the selective value effect. In Experiment 2, when the banana pieces in both options were more closely equated in size the chimpanzees then were biased to choose the single banana piece over the mixed array even though this was the smaller total amount of food. However, in Experiment 3, when we introduced longer intervals between each trial, the chimpanzees preferred the mixed set and thus the larger total amount of food. The results demonstrate that only some chimpanzees exhibit the choice pattern indicative of the selective value effect, and they do so only when item size is not carefully controlled and trials are presented quickly in succession. Thus, the behavior pattern originally labeled the selective value effect may actually be explained by a combination of chimpanzees' sensitivity to small differences in preferred food amount and chimpanzees tendency to avoid less preferred foods that would delay the acquisition of further preferred food items.

Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) succeed in a test of quantity conservation

Nonhuman animals demonstrate a number of impressive quantitative skills such as counting sets of items, comparing sets on the basis of the number of items or amount of material, and even responding to simple arithmetic manipulations. In this experiment, capuchin monkeys were presented with a computerized task designed to assess conservation of discrete quantity. Monkeys first were trained to select from two horizontal arrays of stimuli the one with the larger number of items. On some trials, after a correct selection there was no feedback but instead an additional manipulation of one of those arrays. In some cases, this manipulation involved moving items closer together or farther apart to change the physical arrangement of the array but not the quantity of items in the array. In other cases, additional items were added to the initially smaller array so that it became quantitatively larger. Monkeys then made a second selection from the two arrays of items. Previous research had shown that rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) succeeded with this task. However, there was no condition in that study in which items were added to the smaller array without increasing its quantity to a point where it became the new larger array. This new condition was added in the present experiment. Capuchin monkeys were sensitive to all of these manipulations, changing their selections when the manipulations changed which array contained the larger number of items but not when the manipulations changed the physical arrangement of items or increased the quantity in one array without also reversing which of the two arrays had more items. Therefore, capuchin monkeys responded on the basis of the quantity of items, and they were not distracted by non-quantitative manipulations of the arrays. The data indicate that capuchins are sensitive to simply arithmetic manipulations that involve addition of items to arrays and also that they can conserve quantity.

How much does number matter to a monkey (Macaca mulatta)?

Although many animal species can represent numerical values, little is known about how salient number is relative to other object properties for nonhuman animals. In one hypothesis, researchers propose that animals represent number only as a last resort, when no other properties differentiate stimuli. An alternative hypothesis is that animals automatically, spontaneously, and routinely represent the numerical attributes of their environments. The authors compared the influence of number versus that of shape, color, and surface area on rhesus monkeys' (Macaca mulatta) decisions by testing them on a matching task with more than one correct answer: a numerical match and a nonnumerical (color, surface area, or shape) match. The authors also tested whether previous laboratory experience with numerical discrimination influenced a monkey's propensity to represent number. Contrary to the last-resort hypothesis, all monkeys based their decisions on numerical value when the numerical ratio was favorable.

Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) succeed on a computerized test designed to assess conservation of discrete quantity

Conservation of quantity occurs through recognition that changes in the physical arrangement of a set of items do not change the quantity of items in that set. Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) were presented with a computerized quantity judgment task. Monkeys were rewarded for selecting the greater quantity of items in one of two horizontal arrays of items on the screen. On some trials, after a correct selection, no reward was given but one of the arrays was manipulated. In some cases, this manipulation involved moving items closer together or farther apart to change the physical arrangement of the array without changing the quantity of items in the array. In other cases, additional items were added to the initially smaller array so that it became quantitatively larger. Monkeys then made another selection from the two rows of items. Monkeys were sensitive to these manipulations, changing their selections when the number of items in the rows changed but not when the arrangement only was changed. Therefore, monkeys responded on the basis of the quantity of items, and they were not distracted by non-quantitative manipulations of the sets.