4.5 Article

Perception of food amounts by chimpanzees based on the number, size, contour length and visibility of items

期刊

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
卷 75, 期 -, 页码 1793-1802

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.10.035

关键词

chimpanzee; numerosity; Pan troglodytes; perception; quantity judgement; representation

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [P01 HD038051-060006, P01 HD038051-070006, P01 HD038051-080006, P01 HD038051, P01 HD038051-090006] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nonhuman animals reliably select the largest of two or more sets of discrete items, particularly if those items are food items. However, many studies of these numerousness judgements fail to control for confounds between amount of food (e. g. mass or volume) and number of food items. Stimulus dimensions other than number of items also may influence how animals perceive sets and make choices. Four chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes, completed a variety of tasks that involved comparisons of food items (graham crackers) that varied in number, size and orientation. In experiment 1, chimpanzees chose between two alternative sets of visible cracker pieces. In experiment 2, the experimenters presented one set of crackers in a vertical orientation (stacked) and the other in a horizontal orientation. In experiment 3, the experimenters presented all food items one at a time by dropping them into opaque containers. Chimpanzees succeeded overall in choosing the largest amount of food. They did not rely on number or contour length as cues when making these judgements but instead primarily responded to the total amount of food in the sets. However, some errors rejected choices of the set with the smaller total amount of food but the individually largest single food item. Thus, responses were not optimal because of biases that were not related to the total amount of food in the sets. (c) 2008 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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