Lecture Overview Ecological Intelligence (examples) Cotton-top tamarins and spatial learning Look at traplining 3-D learning behavior, NOT 2-D spatial memory Evolutionary preparedness (microtus-related to mice) Meadow voles are polygynous vs. pine voles are monogamous Meadow vole mates with several females in his guarded territory Pine voles paired with single female Experiment took them in captivity and put in maze to measure error rate in each species (ex. Wrong turns, dead ends, etc.). With meadow voles, males performed better than females on spatial task. With pine voles, there was no sex difference on spatial test. Results make adaptive sense given their mating system because male meadow voles need to manage a large territory and females on a daily basis. Females don?t need spatial sense because they aren?t moving, the male is. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Ecological intelligence?ability that isn?t useful won?t show up as strongly. Morphological constraints (e.g., Viki the chimp) Raised Viki the chimp as a human to try and see if they could teach her human language. She only learned a few words within the entire training, but realization=chimps don?t have the vocal cord capabilities that humans do. They have a morphological constraint that prevents them from producing language. This wasn?t because she wasn?t smart enough, but rather, because she wasn?t designed to produce the behavior. Production (can animal produce behavior) vs. Comprehension (can animal understand) Studies of Cognition Spontaneous displays of intelligence Insight learning Cognitive concept of having ?light-bulb moment? or ?ahah? moment Not trial and error, but rapid insight Kohler and Sultan=chimp. Kohler gave Sultan puzzle?different pieces of pole, crate, and bananas hanging too high. Had to stand on crate, put together pole, and knock down bananas. Initially, Sultan stood on crate? then use pole pieces?. But all of a sudden Sultan put together pole and got on crate to knock down Problem: can?t distinguish between trial and error or insight. Chimp might be performing trial and error techniques in head, instead of performing Raven study where raven is given a task and held in aviary with different level perches having a piece of meat tied to perch. Some ravens try and fly off with meat, but fail when string pulls back. Some ravens peck at string, but drop. Test what their first trial behavior is. Solution comes to some Ravens suddenly as they pull string, step on it, pull string, step on it? till reach meat Tool use Early on, anthropologist suggested tool use made us human. WRONG Chimps and Termite Fishing Tool use might be culturally transmitted because different communities use different tools Tanzania--Chimps use sticks or grass that they fashion and strip to poke in termite mound and pull out termites. Young chimps learn this. Western Africa?broad flat rock (anvil), and sharp rock (hammer) to smash open rock Caledonian Crow Use cactus spines to thread through hole in rotting wood to fish out insects Woodpecker Finches Use cactus spines to fish insects out of rotting wood Sea otters Use rock to crack open clam while floating on belly Can animal make tool, not just use it? Observational/social learning Rare occurrence in animals Watch one perform, then mimic With chimps, young animals will gather around and watch adults termite fish, then model behavior (possible observation) Local enhancement? Phenomenon where individual learns behavior, not because learning observationally, but there is a simpler process occurring?high activity and grouping. Young are attached to high activity and gathering, and learn behavior on their own. Rat study of local enhancement Rats conditioned to favor a particular food--cocoa or cinnamon. Demonstrator rat placed with learner rat and given choice of two different foods. Since demonstrator rat conditioned to favor one type, results show that learner rat eats same food. Local enhancement because demonstrator rat is anesthetized so learner rat associates smell from unconscious rat and chooses cocoa, not something observed. Lab studies Production Comprehension Language and the great apes Spoke English (Hayeses, Viki) Chimp raised in home; treated like human infant; try teach chimp to teach, but morphological constraint Sign language (Gardners, Washoe; Patterson, Koko) Ex: Gardners had Washoe (died last year in her 40s) and raised her as a human infant. Taught her sign language. She learned how to request food and could answer questions asked of her. Gardners argued she demonstrated productivity by using words in a novel way. One day she was at a pond and saw swan and didn?t have sign for swan so signed ?water-bird?. Perhaps she saw water and signed water and then saw bird and signed bird. Ex: Patterson and Koko (gorilla) lived in trailer and taught Koko sign language. Gave Koko pet Kitten and Koko named it all-ball and played with it. Penny could ask Koko questions and Koko respond. Criticism: are Koko and Washoe using language or are they imitating training. The vast majority of Koko?s answers were imitations to get food reward (operant conditioning?). Criticizing methodology, not the primate?s intelligence. Sign language: Imitation vs. production Artificial language (Premack; Sarah, Lana, Sherman & Austin) Ex: Give Sarah symbols that can be combined to make request. Tested grammar and syntax. Took away human from testing to make methodology more objective. Signing can sometimes be vague and not as easy to interpret. Symbols are easier to interpret. Yerkish language?use design elements to form lexigram for requests. Primates were successful in symbol use with proper syntax. Criticism: even though no human, still food reward. Can be caused by operant conditioning. Emphasize word order Less influence of cuing Comprehension? Ex: Sherman and Austin two chimps. Each separated into different lab rooms. There is hidden food in Sherman?s room and 6 tools displayed for him to use to get food, but only 1 tool works. He doesn?t have access to tool. He has to ask Austin to get him tool. He has to ask him through keyboard. They were successful! Kanzi (Savage-Rumbaugh) Banobo chimp or pygmy chimp = kanzi. Show higher cognitive ability than common chimp. Kanzi learned to use lexigram keyboard and learned from mother and not human. He understands spoken English. Tried to avoid operant conditioning by having conversations instead of reward. Raised him in stimulating environment instead of lab room. Experimenters don?t operantly reinforce language, but make him use in daily tasks. He demonstrates productivity by forming novel sentences in lexigram symbol. He has concept of future. Can ask him to show person where rock by pond is. Give verbal instruction and he knows what to do. Ask him to do task he has never done before ?can you put grapes in the swimming pool?? and he did it because of word order! Spontaneous use of grammar demonstrate his knowledge of word order== Kanzi lives with Matata. When he says grab Matata?he grabs Matata. When he says Matata bite?he explains that Matata bit him! Word order, symbolic nature of words Self-awareness Gets at consciousness?? Does it really tell you about their ability? Mirror recognition Take spot of rogue and put on forehead (spot where you can?t see yourself) and then place mirror in front of them. Does the chimp or animal recognize that it as themselves. Will the animal rub off forehead/tough spot. Individual differences with each animal? but across species, there is a general pattern Yes: chimps, orangutans Chimps will use mirrors to groom themselves No: gorillas, monkeys Gorillas don?t understand because they will go behind mirror to look for other animal or they will attack mirror Baboon males will threaten or attack mirror Abstract concepts Numerical abilities?addition/subtraction Hauser: Numerical Abilities Wynn: expectancy violation technique Wanted to know if human infants have understanding of addition and subtraction. EVT: present human infant with expected condition: Show baby doll going down on table and then put screen covering doll. Then add another doll placed behind screen and raise screen to show baby 1+1=2 (baseline). Then violation condition: show baby doll going down on table and then put screen. When add another doll put under table so when screen goes up only one doll. 1+1=1? Dependent variable: looking time?how long the baby looks at stage. For expected condition?short looking time For violation condition?longer looking time These results demonstrate an understanding for the rules of addition because they are puzzled and look longer at the violation conditions. Human infants Rhesus monkeys on Cayo Santiago Same test using limes or eggplants instead of dolls. Monkeys? responses mimic human infants up to a certain point. Monkeys have same response up to 4 or 5 limes, but past that they group the food together as A LOT. Concept of relative size?larger than/smaller than
Want to see the other 6 page(s) in Dec 1 2009.docx?JOIN TODAY FOR FREE!