1 |
Learning from communication versus observation in great apes
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
2 |
Context, not sequence order, affects the meaning of bonobo (Pan paniscus) gestures
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
3 |
Bo-NO-bouba-kiki : picture-word mapping but no spontaneous sound symbolic speech-shape mapping in a language trained bonobo
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
5 |
Collective knowledge and the dynamics of culture in chimpanzees
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
6 |
Chimpanzees combine pant hoots with food calls into larger structures
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
7 |
The vocal repertoire of pale spear-nosed bats in a social roosting context
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
8 |
Chimpanzee lip-smacks confirm primate continuity for speech-rhythm evolution
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
9 |
Chestnut-crowned babbler calls are composed of meaningless shared building blocks
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
12 |
Bonobo and chimpanzee gestures overlap extensively in meaning
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
13 |
Cumulative culture in nonhumans : overlooked findings from Japanese monkeys?
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
14 |
Speech-like rhythm in a voiced and voiceless orangutan call
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
15 |
A gestural repertoire of 1-2year old human children : in search of the ape gestures
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
17 |
Internal acoustic structuring in pied babbler recruitment cries specifies the form of recruitment
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
18 |
Sensitivity to relational similarity and object similarity in apes and children
|
|
|
|
Abstract:
This research was supported by NSF SLC Grant SBE-0541957 awarded to the Spatial Intelligence and Learning Center (SILC), the Max Planck Society, and Swarthmore Lang Sabbatical Fellowship. ; Relational reasoning is a hallmark of sophisticated cognition in humans [1, 2]. Does it exist in other primates? Despite some affirmative answers [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11], there appears to be a wide gap in relational ability between humans and other primates—even other apes [1, 2]. Here, we test one possible explanation for this gap, motivated by developmental research showing that young humans often fail at relational reasoning tasks because they focus on objects instead of relations [12, 13, 14]. When asked, “duck:duckling is like tiger:?,” preschool children choose another duckling (object match) rather than a cub. If other apes share this focus on concrete objects, it could undermine their relational reasoning in similar ways. To test this, we compared great apes and 3-year-old humans’ relational reasoning on the same spatial mapping task, with and without competing object matches. Without competing object matches, both children and Pan species (chimpanzees and bonobos) spontaneously used relational similarity, albeit children more so. But when object matches were present, only children responded strongly to them. We conclude that the relational gap is not due to great apes’ preference for concrete objects. In fact, young humans show greater object focus than nonhuman apes. ; Postprint ; Peer reviewed
|
|
Keyword:
BDC; BF; BF Psychology; NDAS; QL; QL Zoology; R2C; RC0321; RC0321 Neuroscience. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry
|
|
URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.12.054 http://hdl.handle.net/10023/10229 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982215015857?via%3Dihub#app2
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
19 |
Zoonotic diagrams : mastering and unsettling human-animal relations
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
20 |
Titi semantics : context and meaning in Titi monkey call sequences
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
|