| Title |
Effects of different training histories upon manufacturing a tool to solve a problem: insight in capuchin monkeys (Sapajus spp.)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Animal Cognition, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10071-016-1022-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hernando Borges Neves Filho, Marcus Bentes de Carvalho Neto, Giovanni Premi Torres Taytelbaum, Rodolfo dos Santos Malheiros, Yulla Christoffersen Knaus |
| Abstract |
The emergence of novel behavior is a multilayered phenomenon that comprehends distinct processes. One such process is known as insightful problem solving. "Insight" can be explained as the spontaneous interconnection of previously acquired behavioral repertoires. The objective of this study was to investigate: (1) whether capuchin monkeys (Sapajus spp.) do show the interconnection of repertoires, and (2) whether different performances of problem solving could be produced by different training histories. Two repertoires were independently trained: (a) joining two pieces of a tool to manufacture a new tool and (b) raking food with one tool. In the test situation, food was out of reach, and two joinable pieces of a tool, different from the ones used in training, were presented. To solve the problem, the monkeys had to join the two pieces and rake the food with the new manufactured tool. In Experiment 1, one monkey received symmetric training (equal number of sessions) of both repertoires and solved the task, but not in an insightful manner. In Experiment 2, six monkeys were divided into two groups: one group received symmetric training, and the second group had asymmetrical training of the repertoires (unequal number of sessions). Subjects from the symmetric group performed as the monkey in Experiment 1; subjects from the other group showed a sudden insightful solution of the problem. The different performances in the same problem situation can be explained in terms of the behavioral history provided to each group of subjects. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 33% |
| Japan | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 4% |
| Brazil | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 21 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 30% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 11 | 48% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 17% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 4% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 4 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 October 2016.
All research outputs
#16,840,069
of 25,541,640 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#1,272
of 1,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,254
of 371,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#22
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,541,640 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,575 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.0. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 371,802 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.