4.6 Article

Exploring the role of individual learning in animal tool-use

期刊

PEERJ
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PEERJ INC
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.9877

关键词

Animal tool-use; Individual learning; Social learning; Primatology; Cultural evolution

资金

  1. Institutional Strategy of the University of Tubingen (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) [ZUK 63]
  2. ERC
  3. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union [714658]
  4. European Research Council (ERC) [714658] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The notion that tool-use is unique to humans has long been refuted by the growing number of observations of animals using tools across various contexts. Yet, the mechanisms behind the emergence and sustenance of these tool-use repertoires are still heavily debated. We argue that the current animal behaviour literature is biased towards a social learning approach, in which animal, and in particular primate, tool-use repertoires are thought to require social learning mechanisms (copying variants of social learning are most often invoked). However, concrete evidence for a widespread dependency on social learning is still lacking. On the other hand, a growing body of observational and experimental data demonstrates that various animal species are capable of acquiring the forms of their tool-use behaviours via individual learning, with (non-copying) social learning regulating the frequencies of the behavioural forms within (and, indirectly, between) groups. As a first outline of the extent of the role of individual learning in animal tool-use, a literature review of reports of the spontaneous acquisition of animal tool-use behaviours was carried out across observational and experimental studies. The results of this review suggest that perhaps due to the pervasive focus on social learning in the literature, accounts of the individual learning of tool-use forms by naive animals may have been largely overlooked, and their importance under-examined.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据