The Performance of Bonobos (Pan paniscus), Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and Orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) in Two Versions of an Object-Choice Task

Mulcahy, Nicholas J. and Call, Josep (2009) The Performance of Bonobos (Pan paniscus), Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and Orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) in Two Versions of an Object-Choice Task. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 123 3: 304-309. doi:10.1037/a0016222


Author Mulcahy, Nicholas J.
Call, Josep
Title The Performance of Bonobos (Pan paniscus), Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and Orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) in Two Versions of an Object-Choice Task
Journal name Journal of Comparative Psychology   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0735-7036
1939-2087
Publication date 2009-08-01
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1037/a0016222
Open Access Status Not yet assessed
Volume 123
Issue 3
Start page 304
End page 309
Total pages 6
Place of publication Washington, D.C.
Publisher American Psychological Association
Language eng
Subject 1701 Psychology
1702 Cognitive Sciences
Abstract The object-choice task tests animals’ ability to use human-given cues to find a hidden reward located in 1 of 2 (or more) containers. Great apes are generally unskillful in this task whereas other species including dogs (Canis familiaris) and goats (Capra hircus) can use human-given cues to locate the reward. However, great apes are typically positioned proximal to the containers when receiving the experimenter’s cue whereas other species are invariably positioned distally. The authors investigated how the position of the subject, the human giving the cue and the containers (and the distance among them) affected the performance of 19 captive great apes. Compared to the proximal condition, the distal condition involved larger distances and, critically, it reduced the potential ambiguity of the cues as well as the strong influence that the sight of the containers may have had when subjects received the cue. Subjects were far more successful in the distal compared to the proximal condition. The authors suggest several possibilities to account for this difference and discuss our findings in relation to previous and future object-choice research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) (journal abstract)
Keyword communication
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collection: School of Psychology Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 33 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 34 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Thu, 03 Sep 2009, 17:42:12 EST by Mr Andrew Martlew on behalf of Faculty of Social & Behavioural Sciences