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

More evidence that less is better: Sub-optimal choice in dogs

The less-is-better effect is a preference for the lesser of two alternatives sometimes observed when they are evaluated separately. For example, a dinner service of 24 intact pieces might be judged to be more valuable than a 40-piece dinner service containing nine broken pieces. Pattison and Zentall (Animal Cognition, 17: 1019-1022, 2014) reported similar sub-optimal choice behavior in dogs using a simultaneous choice procedure. Given a choice between a single high-value food item (cheese) or an equivalent high-value item plus a lower-value food item (carrot), their dogs chose the individual item. In a subsequent test, the dogs preferred two high-value items to a single high-value item, suggesting that avoidance of multiple items did not cause the sub-optimal choice behavior. In two experiments, we replicated Pattison and Zentall's procedure while including additional controls. In Experiment 1, habituation of neophobia for multiple items was controlled for by intermixing the two types of test trial within a single experimental session. In Experiment 2, we controlled for avoidance of heterogeneous rewards by including test trials in which a choice was offered between the combination of items and a single low-value item. In both experiments we observed sub-optimal choice behavior which could not be explained by either of these putative mechanisms. Our results, as well as those of Pattison and Zentall, are consistent with the suggestion that dogs' assessment of the total value of multiple items is based, at least partly, on their average quality.

When maths trumps logic: probabilistic judgements in chimpanzees

When searching for hidden food, do chimpanzees take into account both the number of hidden items and the number of potential hiding locations? We presented chimpanzees with two trays, each of them containing a different food/cup ratio and therefore a different likelihood of finding a baited cup among empty alternatives. Subjects' performance was directly influenced by the relative difference (probability ratio (PR)) between the two given probabilities. Interestingly, however, they did not appreciate the special value of a truly safe option (with P = 1.0). Instead, they seemed to 'blindly' rely on the PR between the two options, systematically preferring the more likely one once a certain threshold had been reached. A control condition ruled out the possibility of low-level learning explanations for the observed performance.

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.

Apes’ Tracking of Objects and Collections

Recent research suggests that great apes are less vulnerable to cohesion violations than human infants are. In contrast to human infants, apes successfully track nonsolid substances or split solid objects through occlusion ( Cacchione & Call, 2010a ; Cacchione, Hrubesch, & Call, 2012 , 2013 ). The present study aims to investigate whether the lower vulnerability of great apes to cohesion violations also manifests when they are tracking collections. While even very young human infants appreciate the continuous existence of solid bound objects, they fail to show similar intuitions when tracking collections of objects ( Chiang & Wynn, 2000 ). In a manual search task inspired by recent infant research, we tested whether humans’ closest relatives, the great apes, showed a similar contrast in their reasoning about single solid objects and objects within collections. The results suggest that, in contrast to human infants, great apes appreciate the continuous existence of objects within collections and successfully track them through occlusion. This confirms the view that great apes are generally less vulnerable to cohesion violations than human infants.

Can nonhuman primates use tokens to represent and sum quantities?

It is unclear whether nonhuman animals can use physical tokens to flexibly represent various quantities by combining token values. Previous studies showed that chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and a macaque (Macaca mulatta) were only partly successful in tests involving sets of different-looking food containers representing different food quantities, while some capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) have shown greater success in tests involving sets of various concrete objects representing different food quantities. Some of the discrepancy in results between these studies may be attributed to the different methods used. In an effort to reconcile these discrepancies, we presented two primates species, chimpanzees and capuchin monkeys, with two token tasks. The critical test in each task involved summing the value of multiple tokens of different types to make accurate quantity judgments. We found that, using either method, individuals of both species learned to associate individual tokens with specific quantities, as well as successfully compare individual tokens to one another or to sets of visible food items. However, regardless of method, only a few individuals exhibited the capacity to sum multiple tokens of different types and then use those summed values to make an optimal response. This suggests that flexible combination of symbolic stimuli in quantity judgments tasks is within the abilities of chimpanzees and capuchins but does not characterize the majority of individuals. Furthermore, the results suggest the need to carefully examine specific methodological details that may promote or hinder such possible representation.