No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Object permanence in cats (Felis catus): An ecological approach to the study of invisible displacements.
Abstract
A single invisible displacement object permanence task was administered to 19 cats (Felis catus). In this task, cats watched a target object from behind a transparent panel. However, cats had to walk around an opaque panel to reach the object. While cats were behind the opaque panel, the object was hidden behind one of two screens. As cats did not perceive the disappearance of the object behind the target screen, the object was invisibly hidden. Results showed that cats solved this task with great flexibility, which markedly contrasts with what has been observed in previous research. The discussion emphasizes the difference between the typical Piagetian task in which the information necessary to succeed must be dealt with in retrospective way, whereas in our task cats had to anticipate a new position of the object. The ecological relevance of this new task is also discussed.
... Standardized tests based on Piaget's theory of object permanence have also been used to compare object representation among animals, which are faced with disappearing , reappearing and moving objects such as predators, prey or conspeciWcs. Numerous studies have demonstrated the ability to solve visible object displacements (Stages 4 and 5) in various taxa including birds (Etienne 1973; Funk 1996; Pepperberg and Kozak 1986; Pepperberg et al. 1997), cats (Dore 1986; Dumas 1992 Triana and Pasnak 1981), New World monkeys (de Blois et al. 1998; Mathieu et al. 1976; Mendes and Huber 2004; Natale 1989; Neiworth et al. 2003; Schino et al. 1990; Vaughter et al. 1972), Old World monkeys (Natale 1989; Natale et al. 1986; Schino et al. 1990) and great apes (Call 2001; de Blois et al. 1998; Mathieu et al. 1976; Natale et al. 1986; Redshaw 1978; Wood et al. 1980). In contrast, few species have demonstrated Stage 6 object permanence. ...
... Findings regarding other taxa are mixed. For example, even though Triana and Pasnak (1981) concluded their cat subjects demonstrated Stage 6 object permanence, other studies did not conWrm this Wnding (Dore 1986; Dumas 1992; Gruber and Girgus 1971). Recent testing suggests that dogs may depend on (inadvertent) visual cues provided by the experimenter or the position of the displacement device to solve invisible displacements (Collier-Baker et al. 2004; Fiset and LeBlanc 2007) putting into question earlier reports of Stage 6 object permanence in dogs (Gagnon and Dore 1992; Triana and Pasnak 1981 ). ...
... Overall, lemurs demonstrated an upper limit of Stage 5b object permanence as they were consistently able to perform all visible, but no invisible displacement tasks. This is comparable to what has been found in many monkeys (de Blois et al. 1998; Natale 1989; Vaughter et al. 1972), cats (Dore 1986; Dumas 1992; Fiset and Dore 2006; Gruber and Girgus 1971) and dogs (Collier-Baker et al. 2004; Fiset and LeBlanc 2007). Our Wndings suggest that lemurs were representing tasks rather than using associative strategies. ...
Object permanence, the ability to mentally represent objects that have disappeared from view, should be advantageous to animals in their interaction with the natural world. The objective of this study was to examine whether lemurs possess object permanence. Thirteen adult subjects representing four species of diurnal lemur (Eulemur fulvus rufus, Eulemur mongoz, Lemur catta and Hapalemur griseus) were presented with seven standard Piagetian visible and invisible object displacement tests, plus one single visible test where the subject had to wait predetermined times before allowed to search, and two invisible tests where each hiding place was made visually unique. In all visible tests lemurs were able to find an object that had been in clear view before being hidden. However, when lemurs were not allowed to search for up to 25-s, performance declined with increasing time-delay. Subjects did not outperform chance on any invisible displacements regardless of whether hiding places were visually uniform or unique, therefore the upper limit of object permanence observed was Stage 5b. Lemur species in this study eat stationary foods and are not subject to stalking predators, thus Stage 5 object permanence is probably sufficient to solve most problems encountered in the wild.
... Electronic mail may be sent to sonia@ln.nimh.nih.gov. species (Dore, 1986(Dore, , 1990(Dore, , 1991Dumas, 1992;Dumas & Dore\ 1989, 1991Thinus-Blanc, Poucet, & Chapuis, 1982;Triana & Pasnak, 1981). ...
... Only two studies, one by Triana & Pasnak (1981) and the other by Dumas (1992), have concluded that cats can suc-ceed in invisible displacement tests. Recently, Pasnak et al. (1988) recognized that Triana and Pasnak's (1981) experiments did not conclusively show that cats are able to solve invisible displacement problems, contrary to Triana and Pasnak's prior assertion. ...
... According to Dumas (1992), cats' failure in invisible displacement problems is the result of a lack of ecological relevance. Dumas rightly argued that it is difficult to identify a familiar setting that may correspond to the standard Piagetian procedure in cats' natural environment and that one can hardly imagine what the container can be and how it can be moved. ...
Cats (Felis catus) find an object when it is visibly moved behind a succession of screens. However, when the object is moved behind a container and is invisibly transferred from the container to the back of a screen, cats try to find the object at or near the container rather than at the true hiding place. Four experiments were conducted to study search behavior and working memory in visible and invisible displacement tests of object permanence. Experiment 1 compared performance in single and in double visible displacement trials. Experiment 2 analyzed search behavior in invisible displacement tests and in analogs using a transparent container. Experiments 3 and 4 tested predictions made from Experiment 1 and 2 in a new situation of object permanence. Results showed that only the position changes that cats have directly perceived are encoded and activated in working memory, because they are unable to represent or infer invisible movements.
... Data also showed that predators such as cats (Felis catus; Dumas, 1992;Dumas & Dor~, 1989) modulate their behavior while searching for hidden objects without impairing performance. For example, they can go straight to the target object (i.e., direct search); however, they can also pause while searching, or they can search for the object by following a path opposite of that taken by the object when it disappeared. ...
... For instance, cats can walk around the left side of a screen even though the object was hidden on the right side. The two studies (Dumas, 1992;Dumas & Dor~, 1989) that reported descriptive data on pause and opposite search in cats revealed that they occurred on 60% of the trials in Dumas' study and on 52% of the trials in Dumas and DorCs (1989) study and that they were evenly distributed across trials. Hence, these behaviors were not a simple epipbenomenon of object permanence. ...
... In animals (see Dor6 & Dumas, 1987), a secondary reinforcer is used most of the time. Cats (see Dumas, 1992) are usually trained to paw the target object first. The object was thrown in front of the animal, and each time the subject pawed the object, it received a small piece of food. ...
Domestic cats (Felis catus) were administered an object permanence task in a novel and a familiar situation to investigate flexibility (i.e., pause behavior and searching by following a path opposite of that taken by the object when it disappeared) in search behavior. Pause and opposite search were assumed to be independent, equiprobable, and randomly exhibited (i.e., random model). The random model predicted that cats would exhibit flexible behavior on 75% of the trials. The results revealed that flexible behavior occurred on 69% of the trials in the novel situation, but only on 52% of the trials in the familiar setting in which pauses were less frequent and shorter than in the novel situation. Thus, the random model provided a good fit of the data in the novel but not in the familiar situation. It is argued that pause and opposite search reflect decision processes when cats are dealing with the behavior of prey that has disappeared while being pursued.
... The concept of object permanence is also an important step in nonhuman animals' sensorimotor development as it is ecologically highly relevant (Dumas, 1992;Etienne, 1984). The three most important activities for most animals are foraging for food, interacting with conspecifics and avoiding predation. ...
... In this study the intuitive object permanence task was used to examine the short-term maintenance of information, not involving higher cognitive processes. Object permanence tasks are known to be effective in cross-species comparisons, because they make use of the high ecological relevance of remembering a food location (Dumas, 1992;Etienne, 1984;Mathieu et al., 1976). To ascertain if the tested long-tailed macaques understand the principle of object permanence, a closer look at the short condition is sufficient. ...
Short-term memory is one of the most important cognitive processes, as the maintenance of information over a short period of time is needed in nearly every act of cognition. There are three main short-term memory processes: the encoding of information, its maintenance in the focus of attention and its retrieval back into the focus of attention. These processes are driven by each individuals’ ability to actively control the focus of attention and thereby overcoming interference. The present study examined short-term memory in long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis) by conducting a delayed object permanence task. In the experiment a reward was hidden under one of three cups and had to be retrieved after a delay of 0, 15 or 30 seconds. In addition, an age-dependent change in performance was determined. As expected, the long-tailed macaques did not have problems with object permanence. Furthermore, they showed a decrease in performance with increasing delay. Interestingly, a significant interaction of age and condition revealed that in the short and medium condition the performance increased with age, while the accuracy of choice remained stable over ages in the long condition. Young macaques showed a steady increase in performance over the first years of ontogeny, which correlates with the maturation of executive short-term memory functions in the prefrontal cortex. An age-related decline in short-term memory performance could not be detected.
The Master thesis is part of a large-scale project, called ManyPrimates, where primate cognition researchers collaborate to overcome problems with sample size and reproducibility. The data of this study were used for a phylogenetic analysis of short-term memory in primates.
... An individual is successful in the visual displacement test if they search for the object behind the obstacle where the object was last seen, suggesting the species is able to cognitively represent the object even when the object is not visible (Fiset and Doré 2006). Research indicates that cats are readily able to solve visible displacement tests (Triana and Pasnak 1981;Thinus-Blanc et al. 1982;Doré 1986;Goulet et al. 1994;Fiset and Doré 2006) rapidly acquiring this ability as they mature (Dumas andDoré 1989, 1991). ...
... In order to solve the invisible displacement test, the subject must recognize the object is no longer in the container, that it must have been removed behind the obstacle, and search for the object at this location (Miller et al. 2009). The majority of research has indicated that cats are unable to represent invisible displacement of an object (Doré 1986(Doré , 1990Goulet et al. 1994Goulet et al. , 1996 although Dumas (1992) found that cats successfully solved the invisible displacement test when a different, more species-relevant, methodology was used. In this version of the test, the cat was presented with an apparatus made of transparent and opaque screens, with a piece of food attached to a transparent string. ...
The domestic cat (Felis silvestris catus) has shared an intertwined existence with humans for thousands of years, living on our city streets and in our homes. Yet, little scientific research has focused on the cognition of the domestic cat, especially in comparison with human's other companion, the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris). This review surveys the current status of several areas of cat cognition research including perception, object permanence, memory, physical causality, quantity and time discrimination, cats' sensitivity to human cues, vocal recognition and communication, attachment bonds, personality, and cognitive health. Although interest in cat cognition is growing, we still have a long way to go until we have an inclusive body of research on the subject. Therefore, this review also identifies areas where future research must be conducted. In addition to the scientific value of future work in this area, future research on cat cognition could have an important influence on the management and welfare of pet and free-roaming cats, leading to improved human-cat interactions.
... Finding and keeping track of objects such as food, conspecifics or predators is a relevant task for virtually all animal species including humans (Dumas 1992). In human infants object searching skills develop in a series of successive steps that Piaget (1954) defined as 6 distinctive stages of object permanence. ...
... Similarly to most other animal research that study aimed at determining which levels of object permanence the species in focus can reach. Hardly any studies, however, investigated the underlying mechanisms why animals commit the ''A-not-B'' error (but see Dumas 1992, Gagnon and Doré 1992. ...
In this paper, we describe a behaviour pattern similar to the "A-not-B" error found in human infants and young apes in a monkey species, the common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). In contrast to the classical explanation, recently it has been suggested that the "A-not-B" error committed by human infants is at least partially due to misinterpretation of the hider's ostensively communicated object hiding actions as potential 'teaching' demonstrations during the A trials. We tested whether this so-called Natural Pedagogy hypothesis would account for the A-not-B error that marmosets commit in a standard object permanence task, but found no support for the hypothesis in this species. Alternatively, we present evidence that lower level mechanisms, such as attention and motivation, play an important role in committing the "A-not-B" error in marmosets. We argue that these simple mechanisms might contribute to the effect of undeveloped object representational skills in other species including young non-human primates that commit the A-not-B error.
... Among non-primate mammals, early studies suggested that both dogs and cats can succeed at invisible displacement tasks (e.g., Doré 1992, 1993;Triana and Pasnak 1981;Pasnak et al. 1988;Dumas 1992). However, these studies have also been criticized on methodological grounds (e.g., Collier-Baker et al. 2004;Doré and Dumas 1987). ...
... Finally, a lack of ecological validity has often been raised as a factor that may contribute to poor performance on invisible displacement and other cognitive tasks (e.g., Dumas 1992;Hare 2001;Tomasello et al. 2003). While this is certainly a valid concern in the present study, further speciWcation is necessary. ...
Object permanence, the ability to mentally represent and reason about objects that have disappeared from view, is a fundamental cognitive skill that has been extensively studied in human infants and terrestrial animals, but not in marine animals. A series of four experiments examined this ability in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). After being trained on a "find the object" game, dolphins were tested on visible and invisible displacement tasks, and transpositions. In Experiments 1 and 2, dolphins succeeded at visible displacements, but not at invisible displacements or transpositions. Experiment 3 showed that they were able to pass an invisible displacement task in which a person's hand rather than a container was used as the displacement device. However, follow-up controls suggested they did so by learning local rules rather than via a true representation of the movement of hidden objects. Experiment 4 demonstrated that the dolphins did not rely on such local rules to pass visible displacement tasks. Thus, like many terrestrial animals, dolphins are able to succeed on visible displacement tasks, but seem unable to succeed on tasks requiring the tracking of hidden objects.
... In this situation, it would be useful if the male understood that the female continued to move while he was not looking at her and inferred where she might be on the basis of the direction and the speed of her traveling. Animals tested on object permanence tasks include birds (Funk, 1996;Pepperberg & Funk, 1990;Pepperberg & Kozak, 1986), hamsters (Thinus-Blanc & Scardigly, 1981), cats (Dore, 1986(Dore, ,1990Dumas, 1992;Dumas & Dore, 1989;Goulet, Dore", & Rousseau, 1993;Triana & Pasnak, 1981), and dogs (Gagnon & Dor6, 1992Triana & Pasnak, 1981). Object permanence tasks have also been useful in understanding cognition in our closest living relatives, the nonhuman primates. ...
The authors tested orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) and squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) on object permanence tasks. In Experiment 1, orangutans solved all visible displacements and most invisible displacements except those involving movements into 2 boxes successively. In Experiment 2, performance of orangutans on double invisible displacements and control displacements (assessing simple strategies) was compared. Orangutans did not use the simple strategy of selecting the box visited last by the experimenter. Instead, poorer performance on double invisible displacements may have been related to increased memory requirements. In Experiment 3, squirrel monkeys were tested using the procedure of Experiment 1. Squirrel monkeys solved visible but did not comprehend invisible displacements. Results suggest that orangutans but not squirrel monkeys possess Stage 6 object permanence capabilities.
... Several studies have shown that in a visible displacement test of object permanence, cats [35][36][37][38] show high success rates, but they were unable to find an object when they were tested for invisible displacement tests [35,36,[39][40][41]. Dumas [42] used a methodology that was biologically more relevant to cats to study invisible displacement tasks and found that the cats demonstrated a high success rate in solving the problem. In this particular test, cats watched a target object from behind a transparent panel, but they had to take a detour around an opaque panel to actually reach the target. ...
We tested companion cats and dogs in similar indoor conditions using identical procedures in the classic detour task around a V-shaped transparent wire-mesh fence. Besides the control group, we used two types of laser light-pointing demonstration (moving around the fence, or pointing straight at the reward). We found that dogs reached the food reward faster than cats; across consecutive trials, only the dogs showed improvement in their speed and dogs continued to use the same side for detouring after a preceding successful attempt, while cats chose the side for detouring irrespective of their previous successful trials. In addition, ‘demonstrating’ a detour with the laser did not influence the speed or direction of the detour of the subjects; and dogs looked back to their owner more frequently than the cats did. We discuss the possibility that for dogs, detouring along a transparent obstacle represents a more problematic task than for cats; therefore, dogs strongly rely on their previous experiences. This is the first time that cats were successfully tested in this detour paradigm in direct comparison with dogs. The results are relevant from the aspect of testing cognitive performance in companion cats, which are known to be notoriously reluctant to engage with novel experimental situations.
... This procedure has been previously used as a part of similar cognitive experiments in domestic cats. 82,83 Although this partial restraint may cause mild stress for some cats, 84 the cats in our study were held by their owners/caretakers (who they are more comfortable with, compared to an unfamiliar experimenter), and the cats were only held for a few minutes while the experimenter baited the container. Although being unwilling to continue the experiment had been set as an important reason to terminate the testing session, none of the cats refused to take part, with only a small number needing an occasional 'time out' to relax. ...
Background:
Age-related dementia has been documented in domestic cats; however, its interaction with naturally occurring feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) infection has been investigated minimally.
Methods:
Visuospatial working memory (VSWM) and problem-solving (PS) ability were evaluated in FIV-infected (n = 37) and control cats (n = 39) using two cognitive tasks tested serially, which assessed the ability of cats to remember the location of a baited container after a set delay, then evaluated the capability of the cats to manipulate the container to obtain the food within a time limit. Cats were categorized using 7 years of age as a cut-off to determine age-related differences. The relationship between cognitive performance and FIV viral load was investigated using real-time PCR cycle threshold (Ct ) values.
Results:
Age significantly affected VSWM and PS ability. Younger cats had better VSWM performance and PS ability compared to older cats with the same FIV status. There was no difference between younger FIV-positive and negative cats in either part of the task. While older FIV-positive cats had significantly worse VSWM than older FIV-negative cats, no differences were found in PS ability. Additionally, Ct values predicted VSWM but not PS ability.
Conclusion:
Age-related cognitive impairments and FIV infection appear synergetic, causing greater cognitive deficits in older FIV-infected cats.
... Another possible explanation for their choice to visit the empty container is that dogs and cats might not be capable of "inference by exclusion", choosing the correct alternative by avoiding an incorrect one (Call 2004), despite knowing that the food has gone. Although some reports indicate that dogs Doré 1992, 1993) and cats (Doré 1990;Dumas 1992;Fiset and Doré 2006) solve displacement tasks-inferring the presence and transfer of an object after seeing it disappear-few studies have addressed inference by exclusion. Erdöhegyi et al. (2007) tested this ability in dogs, focusing on searching for a toy in two-choice tasks. ...
Dogs and cats are sensitive to human social signals such as pointing, gazing and facial expressions. Previous studies have demonstrated that dogs show over-reliance on human actions in the presence of conflicting physical cues. However, it is still unclear whether this tendency is specific to dogs, or shared with other domesticated animals. Here, we compared the behavior of dogs and cats in a two-choice task after they saw a person taking and pretending to eat food from a baited container. After one experimenter showed the dogs (Experiment 1) or cats (Experiment 2) two opaque containers, each containing a piece of the food, another (the demonstrator) removed food from one container and ate it (Eating condition), or simply picked up the food and returned it to the container (Showing condition). We recorded which container the subjects approached first after the demonstration. Both dogs and cats were less likely to choose the container associated with the human in the Eating than the Showing condition, although choice for this container was above chance in both conditions. In Experiment 3, we confirmed that dogs and cats naturally chose a baited over an empty container. These results suggest that both species’ reasoning abilities might be influenced by a bias for prioritizing specific human actions. Although dogs and cats have different domestication histories, their social awareness of humans appears similar, possibly because they both share their environment with humans.
... Intentionality, as revealed in object permanence tasks, has been demonstrated in a wide range of advanced vertebrates including birds (Hoffmann, Rüttler, & Nieder, 2011;Pepperberg & Funk, 1990), bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncates), and California sea lions (Zalophus californianus; Singer & Henderson, 2015), cats (Dumas, 1992), dogs (Fiset & LeBlanc, 2007), human infants (Baillargeon & DeVos, 1991), and nonhuman primates (Call, 2001). Basic object permanence, as described at the invertebrate level (Etienne, 1984) has been observed in the dragonfly larva's (Aeschna cyanea) fixed position in response to the visual obstruction of a prey item (Etienne, 1984). ...
The burgeoning field of invertebrate behavior is moving into what was the realm of human psychology concepts. This invites comparative studies not only between invertebrate and vertebrate species but also among the diverse taxa within the invertebrates, diverse even when considering only the insects. In order to make lasting progress two issues must be addressed. The first is inconsistent use of fundamental terms defining learning. The second is a focus on similarities, giving little attention to dissimilarities. In addition, much work is needed on whether behavioral similarities are grounded in the same neuronal architecture when considering disparate phyla. These concerns identify are “inconvenient truths” that weaken comparative behavioral analysis.
... Early studies provided some evidence that cats (Felis catus) and dogs successfully solved visible and invisible displacement tasks while controlling for olfactory cues (Dumas, 1992;Gagnon & Doré, 1992, 1993Triana & Pasnak, 1981). However, a practical search strategy (searching for the reward at the location that was visited by experimenter) was not ruled out as candidate explanation. ...
Elucidating the nature, use, and origin of knowledge in animals is one of the major endeavors of comparative psychology. Two aspects of knowledge used in inferential reasoning are particularly relevant. First, there is the question of the types of relations established between stimuli (prediction vs. causation). Are stimuli considered as mere signals or predictors (i.e., moving branches indicate the presence of monkeys), or are they also conceived as causes for the observed effects (i.e., monkeys cause branches to move). Second, there is the question of how this knowledge is organized. Are multiple stimuli relations considered in isolation or are they organized into a coherent and fluid network? The goal of this chapter is to review the literature on inferential reasoning abilities of nonhuman animals paying special attention to the nature of the relations between stimuli. We begin by offering a definition of inference, some important key distinctions, and a classification of inferential abilities. The next sections will review what is known about basic inferences in nonhuman animals and explore the issue of causal maps and the evolution of causal reasoning. We will close by addressing four key issues for understanding inferential abilities in nonhuman animals: (a) which kinds of relations animals represent, (b) what kind of protological operations they apply to these representations, (c) how can the inferred relations be integrated in complex causal maps, and (d) how inferential reasoning may have evolved. Although our review will concentrate on work done in the laboratory in food acquisition, simply because this is the work that can distinguish between the various processes, we will include information about field data whenever possible.
... This hunting style may be facilitated by formation of a mental representation of the prey from auditory cues. In fact, cats show excellent object permanence, maintaining a representation of the object after its disappearance (Triana and Pasnak, 1981;Dumas, 1992). The cognitive ability to form a represention an unseen object from its noise, and to behave in a manner consistent with this, is consistent with these ecological needs. ...
... Many animals have been tested and pass visible displacement tests including dogs Doré, 1992, 1993), cats (Dumas, 1992), parrots (Pepperberg and Funk, 1990), and many monkey species (e.g., Neiworth et al., 2003). Ape species, such as chimpanzees and orangutans have also been studied and successfully pass these visible displacement tests as well (e.g., Call, 2001;Collier-Baker et al., 2006). ...
Object permanence refers to the ability to process information about objects even when they are not visible. One stage of object permanence, called visible displacement, involves being able to find an object that has been fully hidden from view. Visible displacement has been demonstrated in many animal species, yet very little is known about object permanence in marine mammals. In addition, the methodology for testing visible displacement has sometimes been called into question because alternative explanations could account for subjects’ success. The current study investigated visible displacement in Atlantic bottlenose dolphins and California sea lions using a methodology called violation of expectation, in which the animal's fish bucket was placed on a table surrounded on three sides by curtains. A solid screen placed in front of the bucket was then rotated in an arc from front to back. The screen was rotated either 120° (possible event) or180° (surprising event), appearing as if the bucket disappeared. Both dolphins and sea lions looked significantly longer during the 180°, unexpected, trials than the expected event trials. Results suggest that both dolphins and sea lions pass visible displacement tests without the use of perceptual cues.
Violation of Expectation to Test Object Permanence in Marine Mammals
... These stimuli also moved in ''animate'' ways, starting and stopping unpredictably, including briefly ''hiding'' behind an occluder. By keeping ecological validity in mind (see Dumas 1992;Shettleworth 1998), we hoped that we would maximize our chances of obtaining an accurate read of the dolphins' object permanence abilities. ...
Anticipating the location of a temporarily obscured target-what Piaget (the construction of reality in the child. Basic Books, New York, 1954) called "object permanence"-is a critical skill, especially in hunters of mobile prey. Previous research with bottlenose dolphins found they could predict the location of a target that had been visibly displaced into an opaque container, but not one that was first placed in an opaque container and then invisibly displaced to another container. We tested whether, by altering the task to involve occlusion rather than containment, these animals could show more advanced object permanence skills. We projected dynamic visual displays at an underwater-viewing window and videotaped the animals' head moves while observing these displays. In Experiment 1, the animals observed a small black disk moving behind occluders that shifted in size, ultimately forming one large occluder. Nine out of ten subjects "tracked" the presumed movement of the disk behind this occluder on their first trial-and in a statistically significant number of subsequent trials-confirming their visible displacement abilities. In Experiment 2, we tested their invisible displacement abilities. The disk first disappeared behind a pair of moving occluders, which then moved behind a stationary occluder. The moving occluders then reappeared and separated, revealing that the disk was no longer behind them. The subjects subsequently looked to the correct stationary occluder on eight of their ten first trials, and in a statistically significant number of subsequent trials. Thus, by altering the stimuli to be more ecologically valid, we were able to show that the dolphins could indeed succeed at an invisible displacement task.
... In the second study, Dumas (1992) used what he called a more ecological test of object permanence in which cats first saw the target object through a window, near the outside edge of one of two screens. To reach the object, the cat had to walk around an opaque barrier, during which time the object was moved behind the screen. ...
The ability to mentally represent the movement of hidden objects (i.e., invisible displacement) is of theoretical importance due to its generally accepted status as an indicator of the development of a powerful type of representational capacity in human children. Over the past few decades, the understanding of invisible displacement has been claimed for a variety of animal species as well. However, a careful review of these studies finds that: (a) many were not properly blinded, (b) many did not properly control for lower-level associative strategies, and (c) success on simplified versions of the tasks can be explained by a simple attentional mechanism rather than by conceptual understanding. Indeed, when lower-level factors are controlled, evidence of understanding invisible displacement remains only for great apes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
... Object permanence and an understanding of visible displacements have been demonstrated in a wide range of vertebrate species, for example primates (de Blois et al. 1998;de Bois and Novak 1994;Deppe et al. 2009;Mendes and Huber 2004), domesticated carnivores (Fiset and Doré 2006;LeBlanc 2007 andGagnon andDore 1993), dolphins (Jaakkola et al. 2010) and birds (Bugnyar et al. 2007). The ability to correctly locate invisibly moving objects has, however, only been reported in psittacine birds (Pepperberg et al. 1997), corvids (Bugnyar et al. 2007 andPollok et al. 2000), domesticated carnivores (Collier-Baker et al. 2004 andDumas 1992), monkeys (Mendes and Huber 2004;Neiworth et al. 2003) and great apes (Albiach-Serrano et al. 2010;Barth and Call 2006;Collier-Baker et al. 2006 andde Blois et al. 1998), whereby the results of several studies fail to lend unequivocal support to the presence of this cognitive ability in the species studied. Predicting the future positions of moving targets on computer screens, as shown in studies using eye movements (Ferrera and Barborica 2010 and references therein), is a related skill, but its relevance to movements at the scale considered in this study is less obvious. ...
Safety in numbers is thought to be the principal advantage of living in groups for many species. The group can only provide protection against predators, however, when group cohesion is maintained. Vocalisations are used to monitor inter-individual distances, especially under conditions of poor visibility, but should be avoided in the presence of predators. Mentally tracking the movements of silent and invisible group members would allow animals foraging in dense vegetation to stay close to their group members while reducing the use of vocal contact. We tested the socio-spatial cognitive abilities of wild vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus pygerythrus) by comparing their reactions to plausible and implausible displacements of group members simulated by sound playbacks. Our methods are comparable to those used in studies of 'object permanence' and 'invisible displacements' of inanimate objects. Our results show that vervets can track the whereabouts of invisibly and silently moving group members, at least over short periods of time.
... Nevertheless, numerous studies have shown that birds and mammals can cope with displacements in which the trajectory of the object is visible and can recover objects that have disappeared from sight behind opaque barriers [e.g. Call, 2001;Collier-Baker et al., 2004;de Blois et al., 1998;Deppe et al., 2009;Doré, 1986;Dumas, 1992;Fedor et al., 2008;Fiset & Leblanc, 2007;Mendes & Huber, 2004;Natale et al., 1986;Neiworth et al., 2003;Pepperberg & Kozak, 1986;Pepperberg et al., 1997;Pollok et al., 2000;Regolin et al., 1995Regolin et al., , 2005Schino et al., 1990;Zucca et al., 2007]. When perceptual access to the object's trajectory is blocked, the task complexity increases. ...
Eight chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), five bonobos (Pan paniscus), five gorillas (Gorilla gorilla), and seven orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) were presented with two invisible object displacement tasks. In full view of the subject, a food item was hidden under one of three opaque cups resting on a platform and, after an experimental manipulation, the subject was allowed to select one of the cups. In the rotation task, the platform was rotated 180 degrees while the subject remained stationary. In the translocation task, the platform remained stationary while the subject walked to the opposite side from where she saw the reward being hidden. The final position of the food relative to the subject was equivalent in both tasks. Single displacement trials consisted of only one manipulation, either a rotation or a translocation, whereas double displacement trials consisted of both a rotation and a translocation. We also included no displacement trials in which no displacements took place. No displacement trials were easier than single displacements which, in turn, were easier than double displacements. Unlike earlier studies with children, there was no difference in performance between rotation and translocation displacements. Overall, apes performed above chance in all conditions, but chimpanzees outperformed the other species. This study reinforces the notion that the great apes use an allocentric spatial coding.
... Using the method described above, researchers have found that the following nonprimate species can solve visible displacement tasks: ring doves (Dumas & Wilkie, 1995), kakarikis (Funk, 1996), magpies (Pollok, Prior, & Gunturkun, 2000), domestic cats (Dore, 1986Dore, , 1990 Dumas, 1992; Dumas & Dore, 1989, 1991 Goulet, Dore, & Rosseau 1994), and dogs (Triana & Pasnak, 1981). It has also been found that visible and invisible displacement tasks can be solved by psittacine birds (Funk, 1996; Pepperberg & Funk, 1990; Pepperberg & Kozak, 1986, Pepperberg, Willner, & Gravitz, 1997). ...
This study examined object permanence in Sumatran orangutans (Pongo abelii), Western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla), and black-and-white-ruffed lemurs (Varecia variegata) at Zoo Atlanta. A literature review reveals two main issues with object permanence research in non-human primates. One of the issues is that it is difficult to make valid comparisons between different species because very few studies have been conducted using appropriate controls. Thus, one of the goals of this study was to conduct control trials for all tasks in the traditional object permanence test battery, in order to reliably assess and compare performance in the species under study. The second issue is concerned with the finding that all of the non-human primate species tested so far have failed one of the more difficult tasks in the test battery, namely the non-adjacent double invisible displacement task. It has been hypothesized that this performance limitation is a result of the manner in which the task is presented. Thus, the second goal of this study was to modify the existing methodology and present the task to gorillas and orangutans in locomotive space to see if performance improves. This is the first study to present this task to non-human primate species in locomotive space. This study found that orangutans were the only species to reliably pass most tasks in the traditional object permanence test battery. Black-and-white ruffed lemurs failed most visible and invisible displacement tasks. Owing to the small sample size of gorillas in this study, further research is required before any firm conclusions can be made about the ability of this species to solve visible and invisible displacement tasks in the traditional object permanence test battery. Presenting the boxes in locomotive space to gorillas and orangutans did not improve performance on the non-adjacent double invisible displacement task. Further research is required to resolve the question of whether this performance limitation is a result of the manner in which the task was presented. Ph.D. Committee Chair: Maple, Terry; Committee Member: Blanchard-Fields, Fredda; Committee Member: Hampton, Robert; Committee Member: Marr, Marcus; Committee Member: Stoinski, Tara
... Object permanence tests have been used for the analysis of cognitive capacities of various species: primates (Dumas & Brunei, in press;Mathieu, Bouchard, Granger, & Herscovitch, 1976;Natale & Antinucci, 1989;Natale, Antinucci, Spinozzi, & Poti, 1986;Schino, Spinozzi, & Berlinguer, 1990;Vaughter, Smotherman, & Ordy, 1972;Wise, Wise, & Zimmerman, 1974;Wood, Moriarty, Gardner, & Gardner, 1980), the domestic cat (Dore, 1986(Dore, , 1990(Dore, , 1991Dumas, 1992;Dumas & Dore, 1989, 1991Goulet, Dore, & Rousseau, 1993;Gruber, Girgus & Banuazizi, 1971;Thinus-Blanc, Poucet, & Chapuis, 1982;Triana & Pasnak, 1981), the domestic dog (Gagnon & Dore, 1992Triana & Pasnak, 1981), and different species of psittacine birds (Pepperberg & Funk, 1990;Pepperberg & Kozak, 1986). Most of these studies investigated object permanence capacities in adult subjects, and few empirical studies have examined the ontogenetic development of object permanence in nonhuman species. ...
Visual accommodation and object permanence tests were administered to 70 puppies (Canis familiaris), aged 4 weeks to 9 months. The results showed that understanding of visible displacement problems emerged at the 5th weeks and developed rapidly until the 8th week. Although the search behaviors of older puppies were more flexible, no further significant development was observed between 8 weeks and 9 months. The results on invisible displacement tests suggest that understanding of invisible displacement problems appears around the 1st year in dogs' development.
... In this situation, it would be useful if the male understood that the female continued to move while he was not looking at her and inferred where she might be on the basis of the direction and the speed of her traveling. Animals tested on object permanence tasks include birds (Funk, 1996;Pepperberg & Funk, 1990;Pepperberg & Kozak, 1986), hamsters (Thinus-Blanc & Scardigly, 1981), cats (Dor6, 1986(Dor6, , 1990Dumas, 1992;Dumas & Dor6, 1989;Goulet, Dor6, & Rousseau, 1993;Triana & Pasnak, 1981), and dogs (Gagnon & Dor6, 1992, 1993Triana & Pasnak, 1981). Object permanence tasks have also been useful in understanding cognition in our closest living relatives, the nonhuman primates. ...
The authors tested orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) and squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) on object permanence tasks. In Experiment 1, orangutans solved all visible displacements and most invisible displacements except those involving movements into 2 boxes successively. In Experiment 2, performance of orangutans on double invisible displacements and control displacements (assessing simple strategies) was compared. Orangutans did not use the simple strategy of selecting the box visited last by the experimenter. Instead, poorer performance on double invisible displacements may have been related to increased memory requirements. In Experiment 3, squirrel monkeys were tested using the procedure of Experiment 1. Squirrel monkeys solved visible but did not comprehend invisible displacements. Results suggest that orangutans but not squirrel monkeys possess Stage 6 object permanence capabilities.
... Research on the ability of animals to form object concepts has emerged primarily in the last 20-30 years, and most of the studies carried out take humans as a starting point (Wynne 2001). However, as reported by several authors (Vauclair 1996;Pepperberg 2002), Piaget's theory that cognitive development is a consequence of internal maturation under the influence of environmental constraints allowed researchers to adapt Piaget's methodology to cross-species comparison (Etienne 1984;Chevalier-Skolnikoff 1989;Pepperberg and Funk 1990;Dumas 1992;Tomasello and Call 1997;Wynne 2001). The apparently simple concept that a hidden object continues to exist even when it is no longer available to sense organs was first investigated in great apes, such as chimpanzees (Mathieu et al. 1976;Wood et al. 1980), bonobos (Minahan et al. 2000), orangutans (de Blois et al. 1998;Call 2001) and gorillas (Redshaw 1978;Natale et al. 1986), in several species of monkeys (Mathieu et al. 1976;Hauser 2001;Hauser et al. 2001;Neiworth et al. 2003) and then in other mammals like dogs (Gagnon and Doré 1992, 1993, cats (Dumas and Doré 1989;Goulet et al. 1994) and golden hamsters (Thinus-Blanc and Scardigli 1981). ...
Object permanence in Eurasian jays (Garrulus glandarius) was investigated using a complete version of the Uzgiris and Hunt scale 1. Nine hand-raised jays were studied, divided into two groups according to their different developmental stages (experiment 1, older jays: 2-3 months old, n = 4; experiment 2, younger jays: 15 days old, n = 5). In the first experiment, we investigated whether older jays could achieve piagetian stage 6 of object permanence. Tasks were administered in a fixed sequence (1-15) according to the protocols used in other avian species. The aim of the second experiment was to check whether testing very young jays before their development of "neophobia" could influence the achievement times of piagetian stages. Furthermore, in this experiment tasks were administered randomly to investigate whether the jays' achievement of stage 6 follows a fixed sequence related to the development of specific cognitive abilities. All jays tested in experiments 1 and 2 fully achieved piagetian stage 6 and no "A not B" errors were observed. Performance on visible displacement tasks was better than performance on invisible ones. The results of experiment 2 show that "neophobia" affected the response of jays in terms of achievement times; the older jays in experiment 1 took longer to pass all the tasks when compared with the younger, less neophobic, jays in experiment 2. With regard to the achieving order, jays followed a fixed sequence of acquisition in experiment 2, even if tasks were administered randomly, with the exception of one subject. The results of these experiments support the idea that piagetian stages of cognitive development exist in avian species and that they progress through relatively fixed sequences.
The authors evaluated the ontogenetic performance of a grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus) on object permanence tasks designed for human infants. Testing began when the bird was 8 weeks old, prior to fledging and weaning. Because adult grey parrots understand complex invisible displacements (I. M. Pepperberg & F. A. Kozak, 1986), the authors continued weekly testing until the current subject completed all of I. C. Uzgiris and J. Hunt's (1975) Scale 1 tasks. Stage 6 object permanence with respect to these tasks emerged at 22 weeks, after the bird had fledged but before it was completely weaned. Although the parrot progressed more rapidly overall than other species that have been tested ontogenetically, the subject similarly exhibited a behavioral plateau part way through the study. Additional tests, administered at 8 and 12 months as well as to an adult grey parrot, demonstrated, respectively, that these birds have some representation of a hidden object and understand advanced invisible displacements.
Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) were administered a variant of the delayed matching-to-sample task in which they had to recover a hidden object and in which both spatial and figurative information were kept constant at the outset of each trial. Thereafter, either spatial (i.e. spatial condition) or figurative cues (i.e. figurative condition) became relevant to solve the task. The results revealed that dogs rapidly associated a spatial cue with the recovery of the object. The discussion emphasizes the role of cognitive and ecological constraints to account for the fact that figurative information was not readily used as a cue to guide search behavior.
Compared with dogs (Canis familiaris), the social cognitive abilities of cats (Felis catus) have not received much research attention, probably because cats are not considered to be as social as dogs. However, cats have in fact developed sociality in conspecifics and, needless to say, cat-human relationships after their domestication. This paper initially considers the reasons behind the underestimation of cats' social abilities, and then reviews social behavior among conspecifics and in the cat-human relationship. Several studies have provided evidence that cats possess social intelligence. Since their intelligence is considered to be expressed in different context from that of dogs, methods different from those used to study dogs are therefore needed for investigating their social abilities. Appropriate experiments or devices will undoubtedly unravel the high social intelligence of cats.
This study investigates the ability of horses to recall a feeding event in a two-point choice apparatus. Twelve horses were individually tested whereby they were maintained immobile in a test arena and visually and aurally experienced the delivery of food into one of two feed goals. The horses were then released to make their choice in two experimental contexts: immediate release after experiencing the delivery of food, and release 10s after food delivery. Each horse performed 40 immediate-release (IR) trials, followed by forty 10-s release trials over a 3-day period. In addition, the same horses were tested 3 months later in the spring with the same number and sequence of trials. Results were analysed by log-linear analysis of frequencies. Results showed that while horses were able to achieve the correct feed goal choice in the immediate-release trials, they were unsuccessful with the 10-s release trials. This suggests that there are limitations in recall abilities in horses, in that they may not possess a prospective type of memory. There are welfare and training implications in these findings concerning the effects of overestimating the mental abilities of horses during training and the effects of delays in reinforcements.
Hume's sections on the reason of animals are considered. He claims that animals show what we find extraordinary sagacity, in nest building and migration, as well as needing to learn many things from experience, just as we do. He issues a challenge to any rival account of our own powers to do as well or better than he does in accounting for the continuities, and discontinuities, between animal and human cognitive achievements. Yet when he looks at our ability to recognize familiar lasting things, only in the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding does he allow that animals do this just as we do. Does his Treatise account of what exactly we do, noting constancies and coherence in our impressions, so overlooking interruption and disguising variation, fail his own touchstone?
Four visible displacement tasks showed that pigeons can learn to find hidden food but revealed little evidence of spontaneous retrieval. In Experiment 1, given a choice between 2 screens, 1 of which concealed food, pigeons performed at chance level. In Experiment 2, when shown a moving cart of grain that disappeared into a tunnel and reemerged, they spontaneously followed the cart if the tunnel was clear but not if it was opaque. After learning to follow the cart, they would follow it when it was filled with grit. In Experiment 3, pigeons were rewarded for pecking at a key when a horizontally moving figure disappeared behind an occluder. Performance was characterized by a time-waiting rule. Experiment 4 describes a species comparison in finding food hidden in 1 of 4 compartments: As predicted from ecological considerations, mynahs performed better than pigeons. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Studied the ability of Capuchin monkeys to solve object permanence tasks with invisible displacements. Three male and female Capuchin monkeys (aged 3–4 yrs) were administered object permanence tests involving simple and multiple invisible displacements. The tests were administered according to 2 types of procedures, i.e., a logical procedure introduced by M. Mathieu et al (1976) and a comprehensive procedure previously applied by F. Natale and F. Antinucci (1989) and G. Schino et al (1990). Ss' test responses under these different conditions were compared, and a detailed behavioral analysis was performed to determine the suitability of Piagetian-type tasks to the attentional and behavioral characteristics of Capuchin monkeys. (English abstract) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Eleven young kakarikis (Cyanoramphus auriceps) were tested on 15 object-permanence tasks in a standardized scale that has been used to assess the development of human
infants, some nonhuman primates, and other mammals. The birds successfully completed all tasks in this scale, and many aspects
of their testing were similar to human results, such as evidencing the A-not-B error. However, the birds differed slightly
but significantly from human subjects in that some of the “invisible displacements” of the later tasks were performed before
the earlier visible displacement tasks. These results may relate to common ecological activities of this species. Six of the
birds were parent-raised; 5 were hand-raised. The hand-raised birds achieved criteria more quickly than did the parent-raised
birds possibly because the former were more accustomed to the investigator and less distractible in the test situation.
The authors evaluated the ontogenetic performance of a grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus) on object permanence tasks designed for human infants. Testing began when the bird was 8 weeks old, prior to fledging and weaning. Because adult grey parrots understand complex invisible displacements (I. M. Pepperberg & F. A. Kozak, 1986), the authors continued weekly testing until the current subject completed all of I. C. Uzgiris and J. Hunt's (1975) Scale 1 tasks. Stage 6 object permanence with respect to these tasks emerged at 22 weeks, after the bird had fledged but before it was completely weaned. Although the parrot progressed more rapidly overall than other species that have been tested ontogenetically, the subject similarly exhibited a behavioral plateau part way through the study. Additional tests, administered at 8 and 12 months as well as to an adult grey parrot, demonstrated, respectively, that these birds have some representation of a hidden object and understand advanced invisible displacements.
We tested the hypothesis that poor performance on the Piagetian invisible displacement task is related to increased memory requirements. Rhesus monkeys and orangutans received 3 types of problems (invisible, visible, and no transfer problems) each containing a number of steps equivalent to that of standard invisible displacements. If failure to solve invisible displacements was due to increased memory requirements, then the primates should perform at chance level on all 3 problems. However, rhesus monkeys solved visible and no transfer problems, but not invisible transfer problems. Half of the orangutans solved all 3 transfer problems, although their performance on invisible transfer problems was lower than that on the other problems. A subsequent cuing phase led to improved performance, and a few monkeys solved invisible transfer problems.
Cotton top tamarins were tested in visible and invisible displacement tasks in a method similar to that used elsewhere to test squirrel monkeys and orangutans. All subjects performed at levels significantly above chance on visible ( n=8) and invisible ( n=7) displacements, wherein the tasks included tests of the perseverance error, tests of memory in double and triple displacements, and "catch" trials that tested for the use of the experimenter's hand as a cue for the correct cup. Performance on all nine tasks was significantly higher than chance level selection of cups, and tasks using visible displacements generated more accurate performance than tasks using invisible displacements. Performance was not accounted for by a practice effect based on exposure to successive tasks. Results suggest that tamarins possess stage 6 object permanence capabilities, and that in a situation involving brief exposure to tasks and foraging opportunities, tracking objects' movements and responding more flexibly are abilities expressed readily by the tamarins.
A series of 9 search tasks corresponding to the Piagetian Stages 3-6 of object permanence were administered to 11 common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). Success rates varied strongly among tasks and marmosets, but the performances of most subjects were above chance level on the majority of tasks of visible and invisible displacements. Although up to 24 trials were administered in the tests, subjects did not improve their performance across trials. Errors were due to preferences for specific locations or boxes, simple search strategies, and attentional deficits. The performances of at least 2 subjects that achieved very high scores up to the successive invisible displacement task suggest that this species is able to represent the existence and the movements of unperceived objects.
Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) perform above chance on invisible displacement tasks despite showing few other signs of possessing the necessary representational abilities. Four experiments investigated how dogs find an object that has been hidden in 1 of 3 opaque boxes. Dogs passed the task under a variety of control conditions, but only if the device used to displace the object ended up adjacent to the target box after the displacement. These results suggest that the search behavior of dogs was guided by simple associative rules rather than mental representation of the object's past trajectory. In contrast, Experiment 5 found that on the same task, 18- and 24-month-old children showed no disparity between trials in which the displacement device was adjacent or nonadjacent to the target box.
Previous research suggests that chimpanzees understand single invisible displacement. However, this Piagetian task may be solvable through the use of simple search strategies rather than through mentally representing the past trajectory of an object. Four control conditions were thus administered to two chimpanzees in order to separate associative search strategies from performance based on mental representation. Strategies involving experimenter cue-use, search at the last or first box visited by the displacement device, and search at boxes adjacent to the displacement device were systematically controlled for. Chimpanzees showed no indications of utilizing these simple strategies, suggesting that their capacity to mentally represent single invisible displacements is comparable to that of 18-24-month-old children.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.