Brian W. Stone

How tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella spp) and common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) align objects to surfaces: Insights into spatial reasoning and implications for tool use

This report addresses phylogenetic variation in a spatial skill that underlies tool use: aligning objects to a feature of a surface. Fragaszy and Cummins‐Sebrees [Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews 4:282–306, 2005] model of relational spatial reasoning and Skill Development and Perception–Action theories guided the design of the study. We examined how capuchins and chimpanzees place stick objects of varying shapes into matching grooves on a flat surface. Although most individuals aligned the long axis of the object with the matching groove more often than expected by chance, all typically did so with poor precision. Some individuals managed to align a second feature, and only one (a capuchin monkey) achieved above‐chance success at aligning three features with matching grooves. Our findings suggest that capuchins and chimpanzees do not reliably align objects along even one axis, and that neither species can reliably or easily master object placement tasks that require managing two or more spatial relations concurrently. Moreover, they did not systematically vary their behavior in a manner that would aid discovery of the affordances of the stick–surface combination beyond sliding the stick along the surface (which may have provided haptic information about the location of the groove). These limitations have profound consequences for the forms of tool use we can expect these individuals to master. Am. J. Primatol. 73:1012–1030, 2011.

“Vision for Action” in Young Children Aligning Multi-Featured Objects: Development and Comparison with Nonhuman Primates

Effective vision for action and effective management of concurrent spatial relations underlie skillful manipulation of objects, including hand tools, in humans. Children’s performance in object insertion tasks (fitting tasks) provides one index of the striking changes in the development of vision for action in early life. Fitting tasks also tap children’s ability to work with more than one feature of an object concurrently. We examine young children’s performance on fitting tasks in two and three dimensions and compare their performance with the previously reported performance of adult individuals of two species of nonhuman primates on similar tasks. Two, three, and four year-old children routinely aligned a bar-shaped stick and a cross-shaped stick but had difficulty aligning a tomahawk-shaped stick to a matching cut-out. Two year-olds were especially challenged by the tomahawk. Three and four year-olds occasionally held the stick several inches above the surface, comparing the stick to the surface visually, while trying to align it. The findings suggest asynchronous development in the ability to use vision to achieve alignment and to work with two and three spatial features concurrently. Using vision to align objects precisely to other objects and managing more than one spatial relation between an object and a surface are already more elaborated in two year-old humans than in other primates. The human advantage in using hand tools derives in part from this fundamental difference in the relation between vision and action between humans and other primates.

Multisensory Tracking of Objects in Darkness: Capture of Positive Afterimages by the Tactile and Proprioceptive Senses.

This paper reports on three experiments investigating the contribution of different sensory modalities to the tracking of objects moved in total darkness. Participants sitting in the dark were exposed to a brief, bright flash which reliably induced a positive visual afterimage of the scene so illuminated. If the participants subsequently move their hand in the darkness, the visual afterimage of that hand fades or disappears; this is presumably due to conflict between the illusory visual afterimage (of the hand in its original location) and other information (e.g., proprioceptive) from a general mechanism for tracking body parts. This afterimage disappearance effect also occurs for held objects which are moved in the dark, and some have argued that this represents a case of body schema extension, i.e. the rapid incorporation of held external objects into the body schema. We demonstrate that the phenomenon is not limited to held objects and occurs in conditions where incorporation into the body schema is unlikely. Instead, we propose that the disappearance of afterimages of objects moved in darkness comes from a general mechanism for object tracking which integrates input from multiple sensory systems. This mechanism need not be limited to tracking body parts, and thus we need not invoke body schema extension to explain the afterimage disappearance. In this series of experiments, we test whether auditory feedback of object movement can induce afterimage disappearance, demonstrate that the disappearance effect scales with the magnitude of proprioceptive feedback, and show that tactile feedback alone is sufficient for the effect. Together, these data demonstrate that the visual percept of a positive afterimage is constructed not just from visual input of the scene when light reaches the eyes, but in conjunction with input from multiple other senses.