4.2 Article

Looking Ahead? Computerized Maze Task Performance by Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), Rhesus Monkeys (Macaca mulatta), Capuchin Monkeys (Cebus apella), and Human Children (Homo sapiens)

Journal

JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 129, Issue 2, Pages 160-173

Publisher

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0038936

Keywords

planning; mazes; chimpanzees; rhesus monkeys; capuchin monkeys; children; future-oriented processes

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [HD060563]
  2. National Science Foundation [BCS-0924811]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Human and nonhuman primates are not mentally constrained to the present. They can remember the past and-at least to an extent-anticipate the future. Anticipation of the future ranges from long-term prospection such as planning for retirement to more short-term future-oriented cognition such as planning a route through a maze. Here we tested a great ape species (chimpanzees), an Old World monkey species (rhesus macaques), a New World monkey species (capuchin monkeys), and human children on a computerized maze task. All subjects had to move a cursor through a maze to reach a goal at the bottom of the screen. For best performance on the task, subjects had to plan ahead to the end of the maze to move the cursor in the correct direction, avoid traps, and reverse directions if necessary. Mazes varied in difficulty. Chimpanzees were better than both monkey species, and monkeys showed a particular deficit when moving away from the goal or changing directions was required. Children showed a similar pattern to monkeys regarding the effects of reversals and moves away from the goal, but their overall performance in terms of correct maze completion was similar to the chimpanzees. The results highlight similarities as well as differences in planning across species and the role that inhibitory control may play in future-oriented cognition in primates.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available