Concept of uprightness in baboons: assessment with pictures of realistic scenes

Computerized stimuli for studying oddity effects

Visually hunting predators must overcome the challenges that prey groups present. One such challenge is the confusion effect where an overburdened visual system means predators are unable to successfully target prey. A strategy to overcome confusion is the targeting of distinct, or odd, individuals (the oddity effect). In live prey experiments, manipulation of group member phenotypes can be challenging and prey may differ on more than the single feature one intends to define as odd. The use of highly controllable computerized stimuli to study predator–prey interactions is increasingly popular in the field of behavioral ecology. However, to our knowledge, the validity of computerized stimuli to study the oddity effect has not been established. Predator choice experiments were conducted using naive stickleback predators to ascertain whether the oddity effect could be demonstrated in the absence of live prey. We found evidence for both the oddity effect and preferential targeting of group edges and low-density regions, as would be predicted if predators targeted prey individuals to minimize confusion. The oddity effect was evident at a low threshold, above which dots were no longer perceived as odd and no longer attacked more often than expected by chance. We conclude that computerized stimuli are an improved, practical method for studying oddity effects while further validating the use of similar methods for studying other aspects of visual predation. In addition to higher control of “prey” appearance, the replacement of live prey animals with digital stimuli is ethically beneficial and reusing code improves experimental efficiency.

Perceptual category learning of photographic and painterly stimuli in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) and humans

Humans are highly adept at categorizing visual stimuli, but studies of human categorization are typically validated by verbal reports. This makes it difficult to perform comparative studies of categorization using non-human animals. Interpretation of comparative studies is further complicated by the possibility that animal performance may merely reflect reinforcement learning, whereby discrete features act as discriminative cues for categorization. To assess and compare how humans and monkeys classified visual stimuli, we trained 7 rhesus macaques and 41 human volunteers to respond, in a specific order, to four simultaneously presented stimuli at a time, each belonging to a different perceptual category. These exemplars were drawn at random from large banks of images, such that the stimuli presented changed on every trial. Subjects nevertheless identified and ordered these changing stimuli correctly. Three monkeys learned to order naturalistic photographs; four others, close-up sections of paintings with distinctive styles. Humans learned to order both types of stimuli. All subjects classified stimuli at levels substantially greater than that predicted by chance or by feature-driven learning alone, even when stimuli changed on every trial. However, humans more closely resembled monkeys when classifying the more abstract painting stimuli than the photographic stimuli. This points to a common classification strategy in both species, one that humans can rely on in the absence of linguistic labels for categories.

First- and second-order configural sensitivity for greeble stimuli in baboons

Previous studies on nonhuman primates have shown inconsistencies in their processing of first- and second-order relational properties of facial stimuli. Using greeble stimuli sharing configural properties with faces, this study assessed configural processing in baboons. Five baboons were trained to recognize a positive stimulus among pairs of greebles in a two-alternative forced choice task. They were then tested with new stimulus pairs involving either a first-order version, with modifications in global qualitative spatial relations, or a second-order version, with modifications of finer spatial relations. Performance remained above chance in all test conditions, including when only second-order cues were available, but it was higher for first-order trials. It is proposed that an extensive training with greebles led to the processing of second-order relational properties. These results demonstrate that configural sensitivity is not restricted to faces in baboons and suggest that a common mechanism may support configural processing for face and nonface stimuli.

Automated testing of cognitive performance in monkeys: use of a battery of computerized test systems by a troop of semi-free-ranging baboons (Papio papio)

Fagot and Paleressompoulle (2009) published an automated learning device for monkeys (ALDM) to test the cognitive functions of nonhuman primates within their social groups, but the efficiency of the ALDM procedure with large groups remains unknown. In the present study, 10 ALDM systems were provided ad lib to a troop of 26 semi-free-ranging baboons that were initially naive with computerized testing. The test program taught baboons to solve two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) and matching-to-sample (MTS) tasks. A million trials were recorded for the group during a period of 85 days (Experiment 1). Their analysis shows that 75% of the baboons participated at high frequencies and quickly learned the 2AFC and MTS tasks. In Experiment 2, we compared the baboons' behavior when the ADLM systems were either accessible or closed. ALDM reduced frequencies of object-directed behaviors, but had no overt consequence on social conflicts. In Experiment 3, we tested the process of the global or local attributes of visual stimuli in MTS-trained baboons in order to illustrate the efficiency of ALDM for behavioral studies requiring complex experimental designs. Altogether, the results of the present study validate the use of ALDM to efficiently test monkeys in large social groups. ALDM has a strong potential for a variety of scientific disciplines, including for biomedical research. Supplemental materials for this article may be downloaded from http://brm.psychonomic-journals.org/content/supplemental.