PreprintPDF Available
Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.

Abstract and Figures

Despite increasing numbers of publications showing that many animals possess the neural substrates involved in emotions and consciousness, and exhibit agency in their behavior, many animals are still restrained and forced to take part in applied or fundamental research. However, these restraints and procedures, because they stress animals and because they limit the expression of adaptive behavior, may result in compromised findings. Researchers should alter their research paradigms to understand mechanisms and functions of the brain and behavior so that the paradigms incorporate animals’ agency. This paper discusses how animal agency can not only be the key to more wide-ranging and improved research in existing domains, but can also lead to new research questions about behavior and brain evolution.
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Incorporating animal agency into research design could improve behavioral and 1
neuroscience research 2
Cédric Sueur1,2,3, Sarah Zanaz1,4, and Marie Pelé5. 3
1 Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, Strasbourg, France. 4
2 Institut Universitaire de France, Paris, France. 5
3 CEERE Centre Européen d’Enseignement et de Recherche en Ethique, Strasbourg, France. 6
4 Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Puebla 7
5 Anthropo-Lab, ETHICS EA7446, Université Catholique de Lille, F-59000 Lille, France. 8
9
The authors declare no competing interests. 10
11
Correspondence to Cédric Sueur: cedric.sueur@iphc.cnrs.fr 12
13
14
2
Abstract 15
Despite increasing numbers of publications showing that many animals possess the neural 16
substrates involved in emotions and consciousness, and exhibit agency in their behavior, 17
many animals are still restrained and forced to take part in applied or fundamental research. 18
However, these restraints and procedures, because they stress animals and because they 19
limit the expression of adaptive behavior, may result in compromised findings. Researchers 20
should alter their research paradigms to understand mechanisms and functions of the brain 21
and behavior so that the paradigms incorporate animals’ agency. This paper discusses how 22
animal agency can not only be the key to more wide-ranging and improved research in 23
existing domains, but can also lead to new research questions about behavior and brain 24
evolution. 25
26
Keywords: 3Rs, animal research, ethology, ethics, animal welfare, scientific advance 27
28
29
Introduction 30
By definition, animal research requires the involvement of animals. Although researchers 31
have made great progress and improved experimental conditions for animals through the 32
application of the 3R (Replace, Reduce, Refine) rules, some behavioral experiments showed 33
that animals are still restrained through different methods, such as the use of throw nets, 34
primate restraint chairs (specifically-designed chairs that require non-human primates to ‘sit’ 35
in place for sustained periods of time (NC3Rs, https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/our-portfolio/chair-36
restraint-training-non-human-primates)), rat restrainer, cages, or by food deprivation (Ben-Ami 37
Bartal et al., 2011; Chang et al., 2017; He et al., 2020; McMillan et al., 2017; Prescott & 38
Buchanan-Smith, 2003; Slater et al., 2016). According to McMillan et al. (2017), too many 39
researchers continue to use methods that entail negative reinforcement (when the 40
individual has to perform an action to remove a stressor), whilst procedures using restraint 41
chairs in primates or similar restrainers in other species could comprise positive 42
reinforcement methods (when the individual receives a reward after entering in the chair 43
3
and then getting its head out from the chair) (McMillan et al., 2017). These protocols are 44
used to obtain results in behavioral or neuroscience research but are problematic for several 45
reasons. Beyond the ethical issues of such restraints for animals, these examples of 46
experimental setups lead us to consider which possibilities and results have yet to be 47
investigated and more importantly, whether such compulsory protocols could lead to false 48
negatives or false positives (Chang et al., 2017; Huttunen et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2017). False 49
negatives or false positives mean that studies show respectively negative (not expected, H0) 50
or positive results (expected, H1) but these results are not due to the tested condition (e.g. a 51
drug, a gene, an environmental condition) but to uncontrolled factors (e.g. stress, 52
personality). Indeed, stress and coercion (i.e., the animal is immobilized and restrained in an 53
apparatus, such as a chair for primate or a box or a system of collars for rats or dogs) can not 54
only modify some behaviors but also entirely prevent others from being displayed (Lecorps 55
et al., 2021; Mason et al., 2019; Prescott, 2016). Some authors, such as Van Patter, Blattner, 56
Matsuzawa, King and McMillan consider that the current 3R framework is not sufficient to 57
ensure that animals are meaningful participants in experiments, which is crucial to 58
guarantee that scientific results are not altered by stress or personality of animals (King, 59
2021; Matsuzawa, 2016a; McMillan et al., 2014; Van Patter & Blattner, 2020). Studies carried 60
out on animals under restraints offer few meaningful opportunities for them to show their 61
full behavioral and cognitive capacities, and in this way to exercise agency with their 62
environment and in their relationships, both with each other and with humans (Homo 63
sapiens) (Blattner et al., 2020). Gillespie (2019) wrote that ‘there is a long tradition of 64
studying nonhuman animals in spaces of animal use and exploitation, where researchers and 65
teachers in effect become complicit through passive participation in violence against 66
nonhuman animals…’ (p. 19). According to Blattner et al. (2020), who worked on animal 67
agency in rehomed farm animals and from which this paper is inspired, ‘longstanding 68
ideological blinders and anthropocentric bias frame animals as limited beings whose lives 69
unfold according to fixed genetic or species-specific scripts, rather than as complex subjects 70
who act with intention and purpose, both individually and collectively’ (p. 1). 71
Culture, ontology, political leaning, as well as university courses influence how a person 72
considers animals as objects (Bègue & Vezirian, 2021; Furnham & Heyes, 1993; Miele et al., 73
1993). It would be interesting to look at the textbooks of comparative cognition to find 74
4
evidence that students are being taught to think of animals as objects; that is the method 75
(Andrews, 2020b) used to defend the claim that comparative cognition eschews the study of 76
consciousness. This view of animals as objects is not limited to research but is also found in 77
different aspects of everyday life (food, work, clothing, etc.). In this way, the consideration of 78
animals as agents could be extended from research to other domains: a new ontology 79
considering non-human animals as agents can have political, ethical, and legal 80
consequences. 81
We argue that restraint-based experiments are severely limited in terms of what researchers 82
can learn from animals, in individual and group contexts. In contrast, letting animals express 83
their will or intentions in behavior could bring new advances in research and human-animal 84
cooperation. Incorporating animal agency should be considered a central feature of research 85
and husbandry protocols, particularly when applying for funding. In this article we seek to 86
provide researchers with arguments in favor of this practice. 87
Animal agency 88
Agency is the capacity of an individual to act in a given environment. In the broadest sense, 89
agency is the ability to have an influence or an effect on something. However, agency is 90
considered here as the expression or manifestation of a subjective existence; agency implies 91
affecting the world in ways that reflect a subject’s desires or will (Krause, 2013). It refers to 92
an individual pursuing its own good in its own way (Taylor, 2011). Gergely & Jacob (2012) 93
described that from birth on, human infants are exposed to two basic kinds of agency: 94
instrumental action and communicative action. When researchers allow too little room for 95
the animals’ own forms of agency, the true abilities of these individuals are obscured 96
(McFarland & Hediger, 2009). 97
Blattner et al. (2020) investigate animal agency in a sanctuary for rehomed farm animals, 98
considering how a careful exploration of dimensions of agency in this setting might inform 99
ideas of interspecies interactions (work, research, politics, etc.) and ethics. Their study 100
focused on animals of many species living in this sanctuary. For the owners of the sanctuary 101
and the researchers, the sanctuary is an ‘integrated multispecies community or society 102
whose members shape spaces and practices together, take on recognized social roles, and 103
create and transmit social norms across species lines’. Blattner et al. (2020), De Waal (2016), 104
5
Le Neindre et al. (2017, 2018), and Meijer (2019) affirm that researchers need to spend time 105
in community with animals, learn from them, and be prepared to respond and adjust 106
scientific learning process through relationships with them. This means that animals should 107
no longer be considered as the subjects of scientific experiments, but rather as participants108
that is, as agents (Haraway, 1989). For example, when it comes to assessing cognitive 109
abilities, the researchers’ focus should encompass goals that are meaningful, useful, and of 110
interest to animals instead of focusing on goals that are only relevant to the human scientist 111
(Pepperberg, 2006). 112
It is also important to recognize animals as agents by forming relationship with them. As 113
Andrews (2020) notes, it is important to treat animals as sentient research participants who 114
exist within their own context and with whom researchers will be in a relationship. She 115
defends a range of scientific benefits that come from forming relationships with animal 116
research subjects and that we develop below. Interaction and communication have to go in 117
both directions. Researchers need to make themselves understandable to animals as many 118
species are able to understand our facial expressions and emotions (Bhattacharjee et al., 119
2019; Good et al., 2018; Hoffman et al., 2018; Patterson & Cohn, 1990; Pedersen, 2020; 120
Savage-Rumbaugh & Lewin, 1994). For instance, applying the same agency and research 121
protocols in horses (Equus caballus) as were applied in primates led to advances in our 122
understanding of equine cognition (Matsuzawa, 2017). The first study with horses using 123
computer touch panels was realized recently (Tomonaga et al., 2015). The primary 124
motivation to study horses comes from the idea of understanding humans not just from a 125
primate perspective, but from a broader mammalian (Mammalia) perspective. Tomonaga et 126
al. (2015) used a computer-controlled touchscreen system to show differences in 127
discrimination abilities between horses, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and humans. 128
Animals may act in different dimensions as space and time and different situations as 129
socializing, foraging, parenting, etc. Blattner et al. (2020) analyzed in their paper what 130
freedoms of actions may result in the expression of agency in animals as well as how humans 131
take up these freedoms, meaning how they use these dimensions to enhance animals’ 132
agency or the behavioral repertoire. Their observational analysis, using multispecies 133
ethnography (i.e., the study of the interconnectedness and inseparability of humans and 134
other life forms; Kirksey & Helmreich, 2010; Ogden et al., 2013) and directed toward a 135
6
number of methodological and ethical questions on animal-human and animal-animal 136
relationships, led them to divide animal agency into four domains (Figure 1): 137
1. Agency through space and time: 138
Animals are mobile and explore/exploit their environments. Their exploration and 139
exploitation can be used to better understand animals’ preferences in terms of habitats, 140
sleeping areas, and social relationships. Studies on these issues contribute to the emergence 141
of new disciplines such as animal geographies (Buller, 2014) or animal mobilities (Hodgetts & 142
Lorimer, 2020). Whilst this form of agency seems obvious to many researchers and the 143
criteria are often applied to livestock and farmed animals (Bouissou et al., 2001; Scanes, 144
2018; Sosa et al., 2019), it is less often applied in comparative psychology or neuroscience, 145
despite well-known works on exploration and curiosity in animals published more than half a 146
century ago (Berlyne, 1966; Glickman & Sroges, 1966). In neurophysiological studies of 147
nonhuman primates, restraint chairs are widely used (McMillan et al., 2017) as boxes or 148
other systems in rats (Bartal et al., 2011; Galichanin et al., 2011). 149
Modifications of the environment can be used to shape animalsdecisions and can remove 150
some of the negative reinforcement that is still applied to animals. For example, animals 151
could experience less stress in some parts of their environment than others, and carrying out 152
experiments in these places could increase their motivation to participate and increase the 153
power of the study to detect experimental effects (Coe & Hoy, 2020; Matsuzawa, 2020). Of 154
course, this statement implies that the housing of animals should be designed to take 155
advantage of animals’ preferences and adjustments to features of their environment. For 156
example, boundaries and fences cannot be only considered as barriers and limitations of 157
freedoms but also as security and communication touchstones as suggested by Blattner et 158
al. (2020) or Grandin (1987, 1989). Humans should create barriers and fence placements 159
according to the behavior of animals. Similarly, for behavioral experimental apparatus, 160
animals should not be forcibly brought to where researchers want to test them but 161
researchers should observe animals to determine the best position to place the devices. 162
Good urban design is adapted to human behavior in order to increase health, decrease 163
stress, and the costs of urban refurbishment (Park & Evans, 2016; Pereira et al., 2019). A 164
similar way of thinking could be applied to designing housing and testing spaces for 165
7
nonhuman animals. For example, in “modern” zoos animals of different species are housed 166
together in larger enclosures, while retaining the possibility for each species to be isolated 167
from the others if needed. This is a way to apply the concept of nudge (i.e. any aspect of the 168
choice architecture that alters behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options, 169
Thaler, 2008) to some captive animals studies, as has already been done for species 170
conservation (Czap et al., 2015; Eberle, 2021; Reddy et al., 2017). Kyoto University applied 171
this concept with the WISH cages, a set of enclosures connecting habitats and equipped with 172
a computer-controlled touch panel system for cognitive tests. This framework increases the 173
fission-fusion dynamics of chimpanzees, i.e. their social agency, and their cognitive agency 174
(Matsuzawa, 2020). Other labs provide similar voluntary participation testing stations 175
associated with group-living such as the Goffin laboratory in Vienna with cockatoos (Cacatua 176
goffini) (O’Hara et al., 2021) or the Living Links station with nonhuman primates at 177
Edinburgh zoo (Jordan et al., 2022). This principle is not restricted to vertebrates as ants for 178
instance showed their abilities to escape their captive nest when it was not well designed, 179
thanks to behaviors as raft, bridge, jump or even tool use (Dussutour & Wystrach, 2022). 180
2. Agency through practice and routine: 181
Animals have habits. Social animals collectively organize their day in order to meet their 182
requirements and maintain the advantages of living in groups (Sueur, 2011). Allowing 183
animals to accept or refuse to participate in a research activity according to their routine 184
would increase the robustness and reliability of the results. For example, some studies allow 185
an animal to use a digital tablet or workstation or to open boxes to obtain food inside (Aplin 186
et al., 2015, Whiten et al., 1996). In domains such as visual cognition testing could be 187
conducted in a naturalistic environment with an integrated touchscreen workstation, 188
favoring animal exploration (Jacob et al., 2021). Specific protocols for individuals in a group 189
can be based on technologies like RFID (Radio Frequency IDentification) (Claidière et al. 190
2017; Matsuzawa, 2013); these tools allow individuals to participate in the testing at the 191
time and for the duration of their choosing. Health checks or medical procedures that 192
require restraints, should also be based on these routines in order to decrease animal stress 193
and injuries, as already shown in their use by zoos (e.g., the Great Ape Heart Project, 194
Murphy et al., 2018). Knowing routines of animals or observing why the routine of an animal 195
is different from others or for a day allows us to better understand their behavior without 196
8
the need to disturb them by subjecting them to experiments or health checks. Moreover, 197
modifying the routines of animals is a way to measure their behavioral flexibility, 198
personality, and group cohesiveness. 199
Whilst many researchers working with captive nonhuman primates already invoke a form of 200
consent to work with animals (Fenton, 2014), this protocol could be applied to many other 201
orders and classes, such as rodents. To our knowledge, there are no testing devices that can 202
be used in the cages of rats with which they can play when they want and for the duration 203
they want (although some housing includes different kinds of objects and surfaces for 204
voluntary activity; Bailoo et al., 2018; Crawford et al., 2020). This kind of system should be 205
extended to all species involved in research. 206
3. Agency in the social environment: 207
A social role is the behavior expected of an individual who occupies a given social position or 208
status. Individuals understand the place that conspecifics hold in their society (Borgeaud et 209
al., 2016; Bret et al., 2013; Levé et al., 2016). The adoption of roles that are recognized and 210
acknowledged by others, and indeed mutually constructed with conspecifics, is an important 211
dimension of relational agency and a means by which researchers can effectively affirm their 212
subjective existence within a community. This role can be intraspecific or interspecific. Roles 213
of individuals inside their group have been amply described in terms of dominance (policing 214
behaviors, protecting groups), kinship, and maternal relationships (Krause & Ruxton, 2002). 215
Individuals also develop strong relationships when they share similar attributes, such as sex 216
or age (Abeyesinghe et al., 2013; Massen & Koski, 2014; Rault, 2012; Silk, 2002; Tsuji et al., 217
2007). These affiliative but interspecific relationships are used in the case of animal 218
mediation and zootherapy where dogs, cats, and horses respond to the pain of patients, not 219
only passively but also proactively by initiating for instance play sessions (Chouinard, 2021; 220
Muschel, 1984). With time, these mediation animals developed strong relationships with 221
certain patients. When doing tests, researchers also know which pairs of individuals can 222
easily be tested together or not. Group members influence each other (Duboscq et al., 2016) 223
and can transmit important information to others (Grampp et al., 2019). Social learning can 224
aid animals learning to use experimental apparatus or spaces (Biro et al., 2006; Whiten, 225
2011). This works in many vertebrate species and even in invertebrates: fruitflies (Drosophila 226
sp.) are able to learn from their conspecifics where to lay eggs and bumblebees (Bombus 227
9
terrestris) learn to pull a string to obtain food when interacting with another bumblebee that 228
does so (Alem et al., 2016; Battesti et al., 2015; Pasquaretta et al., 2016). Biased attention of 229
group members towards dominant or older individuals in some species (Grampp et al., 2019) 230
might be used by researchers to make animals more rapidly or more efficiently learn a new 231
behavior. By influencing the leaders, researchers can manage the movements of an entire 232
group (Ramos et al., 2018, 2021). 233
4. Agency through social norms: 234
Social norms are the customary rules that govern behavior in groups and societies (Bicchieri 235
& Muldoon, 2011). Behavioral rules and social systems are partly genetic in animals but are 236
also transmitted through learning (Brent et al., 2013; Krause & Ruxton, 2002; Sinha, 2005; 237
Sueur, 2015; Ward & Webster, 2016). There is a debate as to whether animals have social 238
norms, but all theorists agree that social norms require a social maintenance constraint, 239
such that other group members care whether an individual follows the pattern or not 240
(Andrews, 2020a; Fitzpatrick, 2020). This might be the case in animal collective decisions 241
(Sueur et al., 2021). Although collective decision processes are species-specific, variations 242
are observed between groups and individuals of the same species. The roles played by 243
individuals can lead to a strong leadership or the development of a more democratic 244
process, such as voting (King & Sueur, 2011). Voting systems (Pennisi & Giallongo, 2018) are 245
described in many species, reinforcing the idea of agency. A sense of community (Blattner et 246
al., 2020) seems to exist in chimpanzees and cetaceans (Cetacea), and indeed animals of 247
many species know exactly who belongs or does not belong to their group. 248
10
249
Figure 1: The four schemes of animal agency (squares) and the environmental factors 250
affecting them (circles). 251
252
These different instances show that animals have agency over their spatial, temporal, and 253
social environment. Animals can therefore be viewed as agents; their choice to act has direct 254
consequences on their environment, or they can also resist conditions that do not please 255
them and act accordingly to change them (Carter & Charles, 2013). The behavior that 256
animals show, the facial expressions they display, and the places they occupy are cues to 257
indicate their intentions as well as their stress. By observing these intentions and/or stress, 258
researchers could use animals’ agency to improve their welfare and to obtain more robust 259
experimental results whilst extending the scope of behavioral and neuroscience research to 260
more natural conditions. Indeed, a major challenge facing behavioral neuroscientists today is 261
to measure the behaviors and the neuronal activities of sentient animals in natural 262
conditions. We have to keep in mind that in the research process, some of the limitations 263
11
shown by the animals are actually the limitations of the scientific methods, rather than the 264
animals themselves (Savage-Rumbaugh et al., 2006). This is particularly the case with visual 265
cognition (Hopper et al., 2021; Jacob et al., 2021) and auditory cognition (Calapai et al., 266
2022) with new systems allowing significant advances in testing animals. Similarly, De Waal 267
(2006) argues, about studies with apes (Hominidae) aiming to examine their theory of mind: 268
‘All that most experiments have done thus far is test the ape’s theory of the human mind. 269
We would do better to focus on the ape’s theory of the ape mind’, (p. 70). Following the 270
concept of animal agency, this paper proposes a future research framework to work with 271
animals and progress in research. 272
273
Evidence that animals have agency 274
Many animals (mammals, birds, and other classes) possess the neural substrates involved in 275
emotions and consciousness (Ben-Haim et al., 2021; Low et al., 2012). Authors have argued 276
that nonhuman animals may evidence several aspects of cognition that until recently were 277
attributed to humans but not other animals. For example, rats, apes, macaques (Macaca 278
sp.), and pigeons (Columba livia) may be capable of metacognition, i.e., knowing if they are 279
wrong or right in a test (Le Neindre et al., 2017, 2018). Cetaceans and apes may be conscious 280
of their own existence, and that of others (Gallup et al., 2002). Cleaner fish may have some 281
elements of self-awareness (Kohda et al., 2019). Apes may know what their conspecifics 282
know (Kaminski, Call, & Tomasello, 2008) and believe (Krupenye et al., 2016). Apes (De Waal, 283
2012) and rats (Ben-Ami Bartal et al., 2011) may experience empathy. Finally, some apes 284
may have a sense of morality (De Waal, 2006; Jensen et al., 2007; Tomasello & Vaish, 2013). 285
Of course, there remains debate on how to interpret behavioral studies when it comes to 286
the cognitive capacities we listed above (Bekoff & Allen, 1997; Buckner, 2011; Sober, 2009), 287
and we need to be careful about how to interpret these results (Janson & Byrne, 2007; 288
Péron, 2012). Whilst some individuals show the particular capacities in some experiments, 289
other members of the same species fail in other studies or replications (Boyle, 2021; Voelkl 290
et al., 2020, 2021), thus proving the importance of comparative methods to investigate 291
these phenomena (Krasheninnikova et al., 2019; Schmitt et al., 2012). Moreover, there is no 292
need to have these specific cognitive capacities to be an agent according to some views of 293
12
agency (Carter & Charles, 2013). Methods used by ants to find resources are used as an 294
algorithm for the traveling salesman problem (Dorigo & Gambardella, 1997a, 1997b). In both 295
illustrations, the organisms are not only an inspiration for researchers to resolve a problem, 296
they resolved it with their own capacities in their own world. In that sense, both can be 297
considered as co-creators of the new knowledge, even if they are not aware of it. Accepting 298
this paradigm of co-creation of knowledge can create new research questions that are 299
different from those made under an anthropocentric view. 300
More and more, researchers showed that animals may have previously unrecognized 301
cognitive capacities by changing their way of thinking from an anthropocentric approach, 302
looking for human-like cognition to hypothesizing that animals can think in a way different 303
from how humans do (Andrews, 2020b; Birch et al., 2020; De Waal, 2016). For instance, 304
some species do not respond to mark on themselves when looking in a mirror (Gallup et al., 305
2002) but do respond in a self-directed manner, suggesting a sense of self, when researchers 306
presented stimuli in a sensory modality relied upon by the particular animal, such as the 307
sense of smell for dogs (Cazzolla Gatti, 2016) or hearing in gibbons (Nomascus leucogenys) 308
(D’Agostino et al., 2017). As the same way for mirror and face recognition, researchers 309
presented to gibbons and dogs respectively vocalizations and odors of themselves and 310
observed how they reacted compared to vocalizations and odors of conspecifics. Merleau-311
Ponty had already noted this problem in his Causeries back in 1948: researchers usually do 312
not try to understand animals in their singularity, as they are, but rather in comparison with 313
human beings, projecting what are essentially human characteristics onto animals (Merleau-314
Ponty, 2017). However, this is a means to measure the distance between human beings and 315
other animals rather than a tool allowing a real understanding of how animals live and 316
express a subjective existence (Sueur et al., 2020; Sueur & Pelé, 2017; Tokuyama et al., 317
2012). Studied in the light of human normative references, animals always lack something 318
(Merleau-Ponty, 2017). For as long as animals are studied from a human perspective and are 319
tested in terms of human problems (capacity to count, to draw, to speak a human language) 320
instead of their own questions and problems, they will always respond ‘as they can’ 321
(Canguilhem, 1992), without ever being able to fully express their agency. However, there 322
have been philosophical and anthropological attempts to blur the boundaries between 323
humans and other animals (Andrews, 2020b; Böhnert & Hilbert, 2018; Daly Bezerra de Melo, 324
13
2012, 2018; De Waal, 2016; Langlitz, 2020; Wendler, 2020). As Jacques Derrida wrote in The 325
Animal That Therefore I Am (2008), the traditional scientific and philosophical discourse on 326
animals observes and speaks of non-human animals but never really engages with, 327
experiments with, or gains experience with the latter (Derrida, 2008): this type of discourse 328
can therefore only position animals as mere passive objects of the theoretical knowledge 329
these disciplines build. Such methods are completely blind to the animals’ own processes of 330
interacting with their world (Derrida, 2008), and are completely blind to their agency. 331
Animals interact with the world in their own ways and these ways, i.e. their agency, are 332
precisely the view that researchers need to adopt to perform better research and develop a 333
better understanding of how the brain and behavior evolve. 334
335
Future research framework 336
337
1. Testing agency from the laboratory 338
Some studies, especially in the biomedical or physiological/cellular domains, cannot be 339
performed outside the laboratory. It is important for these experiments to respect the 3Rs 340
(Replace, Reduce, Refine) but also to think about the Bateson cube (Bout et al., 2014), 341
meaning that scientists need to evaluate the ethical acceptability of their research for 342
society as a whole, including animals. Bateson's cube is a model of the costbenefit analysis 343
for animal research in which research protocols are evaluated through three criteria: the 344
degree of animal suffering, the quality of the research and the potential applied or 345
fundamental benefit. The principles can be extended by testing animals in correct 346
conditions, meaning in conditions not leading to strong false negatives or strong false 347
positives. Overly standardized laboratory conditions, for instance, decrease the replicability 348
of studies by decreasing behavioral variability; this is commonly known as the 349
standardization fallacy (Voelkl et al., 2021; Würbel, 2000). 350
Indeed, laboratory conditions for nonhuman primates and rodents were standardized for 351
many years in terms of husbandry and diet, in order to support comparisons across 352
experiments and laboratories. However, this way of conducting research is criticized today 353
because the conditions in which animals live have a strong effect on them, and thus on the 354
14
scientific results, so studies of animals in narrow conditions provide results relevant only to 355
those narrow conditions. Moreover, it is difficult to replicate conditions across laboratories, 356
specifically in studies about comparative cognition because of a large variance of 357
physiological, behavioral or cognitive traits between individuals (Boyle, 2021). Indeed, it is 358
first difficult to replicate same group living conditions in terms of animal density, group 359
composition, conditions which have an impact on cognitive capabilities (Meguerditchian et 360
al., 2021), but even when it is possible, animals that are genetically similar and live in similar 361
environments develop different personalities (Bierbach et al., 2017). Lastly, poor husbandry 362
conditions stress individuals (Cait et al., 2022; Pomerantz et al., 2022) and do not allow them 363
to express their full agency. Indeed, sociality has an important impact on the health of 364
animals, and a large number of publications highlight the link between sociality and health 365
aging (Boyer et al., 2019; Lacreuse et al., 2020; Rosati et al., 2020). Enabling animals’ social 366
agency can even reverse cognitive decline and extend longevity (Baker et al., 2012; 367
Richardson et al., 2020; Wild et al., 2021). Sociality is an important part of animal agency and 368
social life of animals has to be respected even in laboratory conditions, for their welfare as 369
well as for the robustness of scientific results. 370
2. … To the wild or at least in more natural conditions 371
Traditional approaches to studying for instance visual cognition or decision-making involve 372
bringing animals into a laboratory and restraining them while they perform tasks in order to 373
ensure accurate measurements, for example, of gaze-tracking and neural activity (see for 374
instance D’Souza et al., 2021; Honda et al., 2021). However, this unnatural setting does not 375
permit the study of brain activity during natural, social, and complex behaviors (Testard et 376
al., 2021). Many discoveries about ants’ behavior could not be made if not in natural 377
conditions (Dussutour & Wystrach, 2022) as the one showing that the termite-hunting ant 378
(Megaponera analis) is capable of saving injured individuals by taking them back to the nest 379
(Frank et al., 2017). Ideally, experimental settings will permit animals to move normally and 380
to engage in natural activities, such as foraging and in social interactions, but this requires 381
that animals accept to wear some devices, not tear off some cables or even just come at the 382
right place at the right time. Culture of animals also have to be considered and for instance, 383
study of percussive tools by nonhuman primates, known from field observations, has been 384
difficult to achieve in the laboratory. Laboratory studies of this phenomenon (e.g., Bril et al., 385
15
2009) have been less numerous than field experiments, that have been very productive (e.g., 386
Biro et al., 2006; Leca et al., 2007; Visalberghi et al., 2009). In the same way, field 387
experiments or experiments close to natural conditions led to important results in 388
understanding foraging strategies in bees (Apidae) (Pasquaretta et al., 2017) and 389
hummingbirds (Trochilidae) (Bateson et al., 2002). Several authors highlight that studying 390
animals in nature instead of in the laboratory provides more easily interpretable findings 391
(Cauchoix et al., 2017; Kumpan et al., 2020; Verhaeghen et al., 2012). Specific ethical 392
guidelines exist now for behavioral or psychological research in the wild (Costello et al., 393
2016; Soulsbury et al., 2020). The likely benefits and possible negative effects of researchers’ 394
presence and field methods on study subjects, their environment, and the local human 395
community should, of course, be considered (MacKinnon & Riley, 2010). 396
Progress has to be made first to avoid restraining animals in a captive environment and 397
second, to conduct tests on animals in more natural conditions. Such processes are applied 398
today to not only different primate species (Huebner et al., 2018; Schofield et al., 2019; Van 399
de Waal et al., 2013) but also to horses (Maeda et al., 2021; Matsuzawa, 2017), birds (Aplin 400
et al., 2015; Shaw, 2017), and even bees (Muth et al., 2018). These studies, conducted on 401
different species all showed that testing in the wild is more productive than testing in the 402
labs in terms of ecological and social cognition (Pritchard et al., 2016). An intermediate 403
method would be research in zoos. Zoos provide more adequate living conditions than many 404
laboratories. This seems to allow animals to express their agency (McEwen et al., 2022). 405
Testing these same species in more natural and more complex captive habitats or even in 406
natural settings could enhance the possibility of them expressing their agency. 407
3. Agency promotes the use of new technologies and vice-versa 408
Researchers need to change their way of thinking to a perspective of working with animals 409
rather than on animals. Researchers need to trust their capabilities (Nielsen, 2018; Nielsen, 410
2020) in order to increase research possibilities. Experimental setups, such as restraint chairs 411
or food privation, cause stress to animals and prevent them (both physically and mentally) 412
from fully expressing their agency. This challenge of giving animals more freedoms may 413
certainly takes time but would be hugely beneficial. Van Patter and Blattner (2020) suggest 414
core principles to follow with animals: non-maleficence, beneficence, and voluntary 415
participation (Webb et al., 2019). Positive methods exist and have proved to be efficient 416
16
(Laule et al., 2003; Prescott et al., 2010; Prescott, 2016; Prescott & Buchanan-Smith, 2003; 417
Prescott & Buchanan-Smith, 2007; Schapiro et al., 2003). Use of cooperation handling in 418
macaques instead of chair restraint leads to a diminution of stress, decreases the use of 419
sedation and increases behavioral acquisition (Graham et al., 2012). The readiness of 420
chimpanzees (which are no longer used for invasive experiments Matsuzawa, 2016b) to 421
voluntarily participate in interactions or allow humans to observe them can facilitate the 422
measurement of embryo development and brain activities in unanesthetized and 423
unrestrained individuals (Figure 2 - Matsuzawa,2013; Sakai et al., 2011, 2012; Ueno et al., 424
2010). Unrestrained or minimally restrained and voluntary animals can be trained to put 425
their head in a mask voluntarily (Slater et al., 2016) and be tested whilst receiving fruit juice. 426
This allows the measurement of different metrics with eye tracking (apes: Kano & 427
Tomonaga, 2009; Krupenye et al., 2016; monkeys: Machado & Nelson, 2011; Ryan et al., 428
2019) and non-invasive neuroimaging (Basso et al., 2021) (Figure 3.A). Magnetic resonance 429
imaging (MRI) requires the subject to remain still during the scan. Dogs can be trained to 430
remain still during fMRIs without any restriction (Berns & Cook, 2016). Surely, this 431
cooperation can be achieved with other species, allowing testing emotions and cognitive 432
capacities as done with humans (Cheng et al., 2010; Eisenberger et al., 2003; Yang et al., 433
2022; Yates et al., 2021). 434
435
436
Figure 2: (A) Developmental neuroscience. Fetal brain development in chimpanzees was 437
measured by a non-invasive ultrasound technique. (B) EEG recordings in a chimpanzee. The 438
17
chimpanzee quietly sat on the chair and allowed the experimenter to put electrode patches 439
on the skin of her forehead and the top of her head. Photos provided courtesy of Satoshi 440
Hirata. 441
442
Touchscreens are useful tools that demonstrate agency in nonhuman animals. Individuals 443
have to learn by themselves how to solve visual problems. Software running the displays and 444
data collection systems are easy to adapt to individuals’ cognitive capacities and perception. 445
Researchers can measure different parameters (time of answering the test, success, type of 446
answers) for each individual and species. The possibility of more freedoms of action can 447
produce individual and group specificity. For instance, Claidière et al. (2014) gave a task to 448
baboons (Papio papio) where they have to click on red squares on a 4*4 squares matrix. 449
Instead of forcing animals to answer specific patterns, the authors took into account how 450
baboons succeed to click on some patterns to transmit these patterns to other baboons and 451
showed evidence of cultural transmission in baboons as in humans. Some years ago, 452
applying the use of touchscreens with nonhuman animals, or studying mouse personality 453
was almost unimaginable in neuroscience. Yet today, these projects have become reality. For 454
instance, the use of a touchscreen was initially difficult but eventually, use of this testing 455
method led to tests of new concepts more quickly than tests without touchscreens in 456
chimpanzees (Gao et al., 2018; Inoue & Matsuzawa, 2007; Martinet et al., 2021) and 457
macaques (Ballesta et al., 2021; Ferrucci et al., 2019; Huskisson et al., 2021). In the same 458
vein, it took time for naïve capuchins (Sapajus sp.), macaques (Macaca sp.), and apes (Pan 459
troglodytes, Pongo pygmaeus abelii) to understand a food for - food exchange task (Dufour 460
et al., 2007; Pelé et al., 2009; Pelé et al., 2010; Ramseyer et al., 2006), but once the behavior 461
was acquired, it was easily transmitted from adults to their young (Pelé, personal 462
observation). Touchscreens or joysticks are now used to understand cognition (Kaneko & 463
Tomonaga, 2011) in a wide range of species (pigs Sus scrofa, macaques, baboonsPapio 464
papio, marmosets - Callithrix jacchus, goats, horses, rats, micemus musculus, etc.) (Belsey 465
et al., 2020; Calapai et al., 2022; Claidière et al., 2017; Croney & Boysen (2021); Jacobson et 466
al., 2019; Tomonaga et al., 2015; Washburn et al., 2004; Yang et al. 2022; Zeagler et al., 467
2014). Researchers trained archerfish (Toxotes chatareus) to spit on a touchscreen and 468
showed that they are able to differentiate human faces (Newport et al., 2016). However, 469
18
touchscreen technology is still limited despite its potential and even if more and more 470
neuroscience studies have been using it in mice or rats (Bussey et al., 1997, 2008; Delotterie 471
et al., 2015; Slutzky et al., 2010). So, touchscreens and joystick apparatuses promote animal 472
agency, even though it is in a limited artificial environment. However, these devices can be 473
extended to the wild and the principle of touchscreen (touching for a visual choice) should 474
be extended to other senses as it was done for testing auditory capabilities in common 475
marmosets (Calapai et al., 2022). 476
Other new technologies allow us to bring devices into natural settings to test unrestrained 477
animals in their natural (including social) environment, thus removing experimental sources 478
of stress and allowing them agency and expression of their entire behavioral repertoire. 479
Field experiments of this type are possible in many species including rodents (Evans et al. 480
2020; Lopes & König, 2020; Raulo et al., 2021). The animals can be identified individually by 481
observation or by using RFID techniques (Fehlmann & King, 2016) or via artificial intelligence 482
with the recognition of individuals by video tracking (Charpentier et al., 2020; Ferreira et al., 483
2020; Schofield et al., 2019). The latter removes the need to capture animals. RFID 484
techniques allowed demonstration, for example, that bats (Myotis bechsteinii) form long-485
term social relationships (Kerth et al., 2011) and that tits (Parus major) learned according to 486
their social networks (Aplin et al., 2015). Face and behavioral recognition using artificial 487
intelligence gave some indices about social networks in chimpanzees (Schofield et al., 2019) 488
and signaling kinship in mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx) (Charpentier et al., 2020). It could also 489
be extended to theory of mind and intentionality as gaze-following (Horschler et al., 2020) or 490
false belief attribution (Krupenye et al., 2016). 491
A general idea of how a laboratory- bound experimental method could be adapted for use 492
in a field experiment is given in Figure 3.B. A location is defined where different operable 493
devices can be installed, such as touchscreens, to deliver food or another valuable 494
commodity, with activation only for certain species and individuals. Researchers can imagine 495
implementing eye tracking and other apparatus in the wild when technology permits. This 496
could open up new research avenues in species that cannot be maintained in captivity. 497
Some automatic devices already exist to make some playback experiments as BoomBox: An 498
Automated Behavioral Response (ABR) camera trap module for wildlife experiments (Palmer 499
et al., 2022). Food containers of various kinds, have been used in field experiments (De la 500
19
Fuente et al., 2022; Van de Waal et al., 2013) and robots are increasingly used with wild 501
animals (Grémillet et al., 2012; Le Maho et al., 2014). Research possibilities in this domain 502
are huge. 503
Although there are logistical challenges attendant on any new methodology, we should 504
consider how to take advantage of technological advances to bring our science to animals in 505
natural settings, while ensuring the health and security of the animal participants. As 506
Schaefer and Claridge-Chang (2012) wrote, ‘the new automation is not just faster: it is also 507
allowing new kinds of experiments, many of which erase the boundaries of the traditional 508
neuroscience disciplines (psychology, ethology, and physiology) while producing insight into 509
problems that were otherwise opaque’ (p. 170). Figure 3 illustrates a hypothetical system for 510
conducting eye tracking while an individual voluntarily operates a touchscreen apparatus, in 511
the laboratory and in field settings. 512
513
514
Figure 3: (A) Hypothetical non-invasive neuroimaging and eye-tracking system with 515
touchscreen interactive component and voluntary participation in the laboratory. (B) 516
Hypothetical touchscreen system with voluntary engagement and individual identification in 517
the field. In setup A, the subject would show better agency than if it was restrained in a 518
chair. However, the same subject in setup B would show greater agency than in setup A, as it 519
is free to express its entire behavioral repertoire in natural conditions. The box is needed to 520
assure the isolation of the tested individual and the resistance of the materials to outside 521
conditions. This figure was realized using FAVPNG.com and Biorender. 522
523
20
Conclusion 524
Great efforts have been made toward enabling the agency of animals in behavioral research 525
but there is still much progress to be made to obtain a more compassionate, less stressful, 526
and more robust animal research model. This requires training and teaching researchers to 527
adopt new methods including animal agency and to change their view of the role animals 528
play in research (see for instance the book “Handbook of Primate Behavioral Management” 529
Schapiro, 2017, for methods to achieve voluntary participation of primates in various health-530
related and husbandry procedures). Animals are agents in scientific research. They are active 531
in the research process and agency may promote the use of new technologies. This 532
recognition of animals as agents rather than objects is not approved by some researchers, 533
who consider that this position is tantamount to committing over-anthropomorphism, and 534
overstepping the will of animals to cooperate. However, acknowledging animal agency could 535
facilitate broader social acceptance of research with nonhuman animals (Webb et al., 2019) 536
and be of benefit to the animals concerned (supporting well-being through learning, 537
creating, and participating Franks et al., 2020). 538
Considering the agency of the animals we work with is clearly a time investment that 539
ultimately pays off for more time-efficient data collection in the long term. This time 540
investment in animal agency should be highlighted and recognized as promoting animal 541
welfare (in the same way as plans for adoption research animals, for instance) when 542
readying a proposal for financial support. This new way of viewing animal agency can 543
therefore raise critical ethical questions in regard to the treatment of animals in research 544
and to the place humans grant them in the human social world. 545
546
Author Contributions Statement 547
Conceptualization: CS and MP; Project administration: CS and MP; Writing original draft: CS; 548
Review and editions: all authors. 549
550
Acknowledgments 551
21
We thank the three anonymous reviewers who accepted to revise our manuscript and the 552
editor Dorothy Fragaszy for their helpful comments. 553
554
References 555
Abeyesinghe, S. M., Drewe, J. A., Asher, L., Wathes, C. M., & Collins, L. M. (2013). Do hens have 556
friends? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 143(1), 6166. 557
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.12.003 558
Alem, S., Perry, C. J., Zhu, X., Loukola, O. J., Ingraham, T., Søvik, E., & Chittka, L. (2016). Associative 559
Mechanisms Allow for Social Learning and Cultural Transmission of String Pulling in an Insect. 560
PLOS Biology, 14(10), e1002564. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002564 561
Andrews, K. (2020a). Naïve Normativity : The Social Foundation of Moral Cognition. Journal of the 562
American Philosophical Association, 6(1), 3656. https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2019.30 563
Andrews, K. (2020b). How to Study Animal Minds. Cambridge University Press. 564
https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/how-to-study-animal-565
minds/FC90846C50ED2E992CA2AC51D7C249AC 566
Aplin, L. M., Farine, D., Morand-Ferron, J., & Sheldon, B. (2012). Social networks predict patch 567
discovery in a wild population of songbirds. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: 568
Biological Sciences, rspb20121591. 569
Aplin, L. M., Farine, D. R., Morand-Ferron, J., Cockburn, A., Thornton, A., & Sheldon, B. C. (2015). 570
Experimentally induced innovations lead to persistent culture via conformity in wild birds. 571
Nature, 518(7540), 538. 572
Bailoo, J. D., Murphy, E., Boada-Saña, M., Varholick, J. A., Hintze, S., Baussière, C., Hahn, K. C., 573
Göpfert, C., Palme, R., Voelkl, B., & Würbel, H. (2018). Effects of Cage Enrichment on 574
Behavior, Welfare and Outcome Variability in Female Mice. Frontiers in Behavioral 575
Neuroscience, 12. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00232 576
22
Baker, N., Wolschin, F., & Amdam, G. V. (2012). Age-related learning deficits can be reversible in 577
honeybees Apis mellifera. Experimental Gerontology, 47(10), 764772. 578
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2012.05.011 579
Ballesta, S., Sadoughi, B., Miss, F., Whitehouse, J., Aguenounon, G., & Meunier, H. (2021). Assessing 580
the reliability of an automated method for measuring dominance hierarchy in non-human 581
primates. Primates, 62(4), 595607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-021-00909-7 582
Bartal, I. B.-A., Decety, J., & Mason, P. (2011). Empathy and pro-social behavior in rats. Science, 583
334(6061), 14271430. 584
Basso, M. A., Frey, S., Guerriero, K. A., Jarraya, B., Kastner, S., Koyano, K. W., Leopold, D. A., Murphy, 585
K., Poirier, C., Pope, W., Silva, A. C., Tansey, G., & Uhrig, L. (2021). Using non-invasive 586
neuroimaging to enhance the care, well-being and experimental outcomes of laboratory non-587
human primates (monkeys). NeuroImage, 228, 117667. 588
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117667 589
Bateson, M., Healy, S. D., & Hurly, T. A. (2002). Irrational choices in hummingbird foraging behaviour. 590
Animal Behaviour, 63(3), 587596. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2001.1925 591
Battesti, M., Pasquaretta, C., Moreno, C., Teseo, S., Joly, D., Klensch, E., Petit, O., Sueur, C., & Mery, F. 592
(2015). Ecology of information : Social transmission dynamics within groups of non-social 593
insects. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 282(1801), 594
20142480. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2480 595
Bègue, L., & Vezirian, K. (2021). Sacrificing Animals in the Name of Scientific Authority : The 596
Relationship Between Pro-Scientific Mindset and the Lethal Use of Animals in Biomedical 597
Experimentation. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 1461672211039413. 598
https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211039413 599
Bekoff, M., & Allen, C. (1997). Cognitive Ethology : Slayers, Skeptics, and Proponents. In R. Mitchell, 600
N. S. Thompson, & H. L. Miles (Éds.), Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes, and Animals (p. 601
313334). Suny Press. 602
23
Belsey, P. P., Nicholas, M. A., & Yttri, E. A. (2020). Open-Source Joystick Manipulandum for Decision-603
Making, Reaching, and Motor Control Studies in Mice. eNeuro, 7(2), ENEURO.0523-19.2020. 604
https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0523-19.2020 605
Ben-Haim, M. S., Monte, O. D., Fagan, N. A., Dunham, Y., Hassin, R. R., Chang, S. W. C., & Santos, L. R. 606
(2021). Disentangling perceptual awareness from nonconscious processing in rhesus 607
monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(15). 608
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2017543118 609
Berlyne, D. E. (1966). Curiosity and Exploration : Animals spend much of their time seeking stimuli 610
whose significance raises problems for psychology. Science, 153(3731), 2533. 611
Berns, G. S., & Cook, P. F. (2016). Why Did the Dog Walk Into the MRI? Current Directions in 612
Psychological Science, 25(5), 363369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416665006 613
Bhattacharjee, D., Mandal, S., Shit, P., Varghese, M. G., Vishnoi, A., & Bhadra, A. (2020). Free-Ranging 614
Dogs Are Capable of Utilizing Complex Human Pointing Cues. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. 615
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02818 616
Bicchieri, C., & Muldoon, R. (2011). Social norms. 617
Bierbach, D., Laskowski, K. L., & Wolf, M. (2017). Behavioural individuality in clonal fish arises despite 618
near-identical rearing conditions. Nature Communications, 8, 15361. 619
https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15361 620
Birch, J., Schnell, A. K., & Clayton, N. S. (2020). Dimensions of animal consciousness. Trends in 621
Cognitive Sciences. 622
Biro, D., Sousa, C., & Matsuzawa, T. (2006). Ontogeny and cultural propagation of tool use by wild 623
chimpanzees at Bossou, Guinea : Case studies in nut cracking and leaf folding. In Cognitive 624
development in chimpanzees (p. 476508). Springer. 625
Blattner, C. E., Donaldson, S., & Wilcox, R. (2020). Animal Agency in Community. Politics and Animals, 626
6, 122. 627
24
Böhnert, M., & Hilbert, C. (2018). ?Other Minds Than Ours? : A Controversial Discussion on the Limits 628
and Possibilities of Comparative Psychology in the Light of C. Lloyd Morgan?s Work. History 629
and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 40(3), 44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-018-0211-4 630
Borgeaud, C., Sosa, S., Bshary, R., Sueur, C., & van de Waal, E. (2016). Intergroup Variation of Social 631
Relationships in Wild Vervet Monkeys : A Dynamic Network Approach. Frontiers in 632
Psychology, 7, 915. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00915 633
Bouissou, M.-F., Boissy, A., Le Neindre, P., & Veissier, I. (2001). The social behaviour of cattle. Social 634
behaviour in farm animals, 113145. 635
Bout, H. J., van Vlissingen, J. M. F., & Karssing, E. D. (2014). Evaluating the ethical acceptability of 636
animal research. Lab Animal, 43(11), 411414. https://doi.org/10.1038/laban.572 637
Boyer, F., Jaouen, F., & El Chérif Ibrahim, E. G. (2019). Deficits in social behavior precede cognitive 638
decline in middle-aged mice. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 13. 639
Boyle, A. (2021). Replication, Uncertainty and Progress in Comparative Cognition. Animal Behaviour 640
and Cognition, 8(2), 296304. 641
Brent, L. J. N., Heilbronner, S. R., Horvath, J. E., Gonzalez-Martinez, J., Ruiz-Lambides, A., Robinson, A. 642
G., Skene, J. H. P., & Platt, M. L. (2013). Genetic origins of social networks in rhesus 643
macaques. Scientific Reports, 3. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01042 644
Bret, C., Sueur, C., Ngoubangoye, B., Verrier, D., Deneubourg, J.-L., & Petit, O. (2013). Social Structure 645
of a Semi-Free Ranging Group of Mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx) : A Social Network Analysis. 646
PLoS ONE, 8(12), e83015. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083015 647
Bril, B., Dietrich, G., Foucart, J., Fuwa, K., & Hirata, S. (2009). Tool use as a way to assess cognition : 648
How do captive chimpanzees handle the weight of the hammer when cracking a nut? Animal 649
cognition, 12(2), 217235. 650
Buckner, C. (2011). Two Approaches to the Distinction Between Cognition and « Mere Association ». 651
International Journal for Comparative Psychology, 24(1), 135. 652
Buller, H. (2014). Animal geographies I. Progress in Human Geography, 38(2), 308318. 653
25
Bussey, T. J., Muir, J. L., Everitt, B. J., & Robbins, T. W. (1997). Triple dissociation of anterior cingulate, 654
posterior cingulate, and medial frontal cortices on visual discrimination tasks using a 655
touchscreen testing procedure for the rat. Behavioral Neuroscience, 111(5), 920936. 656
https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.111.5.920 657
Bussey, T. J., Padain, T. L., Skillings, E. A., Winters, B. D., Morton, A. J., & Saksida, L. M. (2008). The 658
touchscreen cognitive testing method for rodents : How to get the best out of your rat. 659
Learning & Memory, 15(7), 516523. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.987808 660
Cait, J., Cait, A., Scott, R. W., Winder, C. B., & Mason, G. J. (2022). Conventional laboratory housing 661
increases morbidity and mortality in research rodents : Results of a meta-analysis. BMC 662
Biology, 20(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-021-01184-0 663
Calapai, A., Cabrera-Moreno, J., Moser, T., & Jeschke, M. (2022). Flexible auditory training, 664
psychophysics, and enrichment of common marmosets with an automated, touchscreen-665
based system. Nature Communications, 13(1), 1648. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-666
29185-9 667
Canguilhem, G. (1992). La connaissance de la vie. Vrin. 668
Carter, B., & Charles, N. (2013). Animals, Agency and Resistance. Journal for the Theory of Social 669
Behaviour, 43(3), 322340. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12019 670
Cauchoix, M., Hermer, E., Chaine, A. S., & Morand-Ferron, J. (2017). Cognition in the field : 671
Comparison of reversal learning performance in captive and wild passerines. Scientific 672
Reports, 7(1), 12945. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-13179-5 673
Cazzolla Gatti, R. (2016). Self-consciousness : Beyond the looking-glass and what dogs found there. 674
Ethology Ecology & Evolution, 28(2), 232240. 675
Chang, L., Fang, Q., Zhang, S., Poo, M., & Gong, N. (s. d.). Mirror-Induced Self-Directed Behaviors in 676
Rhesus Monkeys after Visual-Somatosensory Training. Current Biology, 0(0). 677
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.11.016 678
26
Chang, L., Zhang, S., Poo, M., & Gong, N. (2017). Spontaneous expression of mirror self-recognition in 679
monkeys after learning precise visual-proprioceptive association for mirror images. 680
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(12), 32583263. 681
Charpentier, M. J. E., Harté, M., Poirotte, C., Bellefon, J. M. de, Laubi, B., Kappeler, P. M., & Renoult, 682
J. P. (2020). Same father, same face : Deep learning reveals selection for signaling kinship in a 683
wild primate. Science Advances, 6(22), eaba3274. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba3274 684
Cheng, Y., Chen, C., Lin, C.-P., Chou, K.-H., & Decety, J. (2010). Love hurts : An fMRI study. 685
NeuroImage, 51(2), 923929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.02.047 686
Chouinard, E. F. (2021). Humanimal Model of Animal Mediation Practice (Zootherapy). Or putting our 687
footsteps in their paw prints to open up new possibilities. Sociographe, 14(4), 87118. 688
Claidière, N., Gullstrand, J., Latouche, A., & Fagot, J. (2017). Using Automated Learning Devices for 689
Monkeys (ALDM) to study social networks. Behavior Research Methods, 49(1), 2434. 690
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0686-9 691
Claidière, N., Smith, K., Kirby, S., & Fagot, J. (2014). Cultural evolution of systematically structured 692
behaviour in a non-human primate. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 693
281(1797), 20141541. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1541 694
Coe, J., & Hoy, J. (2020). Choice, control and computers : Empowering wildlife in human care. 695
Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 4(4), 92. 696
Costello, M., Beard, K. H., Corlett, R. T., Cumming, G. S., Devictor, V., Loyola, R., Maas, B., Miller-697
Rushing, A. J., Pakeman, R., & Primack, R. B. (2016). Field work ethics in biological research. 698
Crawford, L. E., Knouse, L. E., Kent, M., Vavra, D., Harding, O., LeServe, D., Fox, N., Hu, X., Li, P., Glory, 699
C., & Lambert, K. G. (2020). Enriched environment exposure accelerates rodent driving skills. 700
Behavioural Brain Research, 378, 112309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2019.112309 701
Croney, C. C., & Boysen, S. T. (2021). Acquisition of a Joystick-Operated Video Task by Pigs (Sus 702
scrofa). Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.631755 703
27
Czap, N. V., Czap, H. J., Lynne, G. D., & Burbach, M. E. (2015). Walk in my shoes : Nudging for 704
empathy conservation. Ecological Economics, 118, 147158. 705
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.010 706
D’Agostino, J., Pasetta, C., & Reichard, U. (2017). Preliminary results of a vocal self-recognition test in 707
northern white-cheeked gibbons (Nomascus leucogenys). 162, 157157. 708
Daly Bezerra de Melo, G. (2012). Nature and culture intertwined or redefined? On the challenges of 709
cultural primatology and sociocultural anthropology. Revue de Primatologie, 4, Article 4. 710
https://doi.org/10.4000/primatologie.1020 711
Daly, G. B. de M. (2018). Drawing and blurring boundaries between species : An etho-ethnography of 712
human-chimpanzee social relations at the Primate research institute of Kyoto university 713
[Phdthesis, Université Paris sciences et lettres]. https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-02171263 714
David, G., William, P., Véronique, G., Thierry, B., & Yvon Le, M. (2012). Robots in Ecology : Welcome 715
to the machine. Open Journal of Ecology, 2012. https://doi.org/10.4236/oje.2012.22006 716
De la Fuente, M. F., Sueur, C., Garber, P. A., Bicca-Marques, J. C., Souto, A., & Schiel, N. (2022). 717
Foraging networks and social tolerance in a cooperatively breeding primate (Callithrix 718
jacchus). Journal of Animal Ecology, 91(1), 138153. 719
De Waal, F. (2006). „Morally Evolved.“. Primates and philosophers: How morality evolved, 180. 720
De Waal, F. (2016). Are we smart enough to know how smart animals are? WW Norton & Company. 721
De Waal, F. B. (2012). The antiquity of empathy. Science, 336(6083), 874876. 722
Delotterie, D. F., Mathis, C., Cassel, J.-C., Rosenbrock, H., Dorner-Ciossek, C., & Marti, A. (2015). 723
Touchscreen tasks in mice to demonstrate differences between hippocampal and striatal 724
functions. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 120, 1627. 725
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2015.02.007 726
Derrida, J. (2008). The animal that therefore I am. Fordham Univ Press. 727
28
Dorigo, M., & Gambardella, L. M. (1997a). Ant colony system : A cooperative learning approach to 728
the traveling salesman problem. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 1(1), 5366. 729
https://doi.org/10.1109/4235.585892 730
Dorigo, M., & Gambardella, L. M. (1997b). Ant colonies for the travelling salesman problem. 731
Biosystems, 43(2), 7381. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0303-2647(97)01708-5 732
D’Souza, J. F., Price, N. S. C., & Hagan, M. A. (2021). Marmosets : A promising model for probing the 733
neural mechanisms underlying complex visual networks such as the frontalparietal network. 734
Brain Structure and Function, 226(9), 30073022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-021-735
02367-9 736
Duboscq, J., Romano, V., MacIntosh, A., & Sueur, C. (2016). Social Information Transmission in 737
Animals : Lessons from Studies of Diffusion. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. 738
Dussutour, A., & Wystrach, A. (2022). L’Odyssée des fourmis (Grasset). 739
https://www.grasset.fr/livres/lodyssee-des-fourmis-9782246817192 740
Eberle, U. (2021). Nudging nature. New Scientist, 250(3340), 4245. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0262-741
4079(21)01109-X 742
Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does Rejection Hurt? An fMRI Study of 743
Social Exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290292. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1089134 744
Evans, J. C., Liechti, J. I., Boatman, B., & König, B. (2020). A natural catastrophic turnover event : 745
Individual sociality matters despite community resilience in wild house mice. Proceedings of 746
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 287(1926), 20192880. 747
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.2880 748
Fehlmann, G., & King, A. J. (2016). Bio-logging. Current Biology, 26(18), R830R831. 749
Fenton, A. (2014). Can a chimp say “no”? : Reenvisioning chimpanzee dissent in harmful research. 750
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 23(2), 130139. 751
29
Ferreira, A. C., Silva, L. R., Renna, F., Brandl, H. B., Renoult, J. P., Farine, D. R., Covas, R., & Doutrelant, 752
C. (2020). Deep learning-based methods for individual recognition in small birds. Methods in 753
Ecology and Evolution, 11(9), 10721085. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13436 754
Ferrucci, L., Nougaret, S., & Genovesio, A. (2019). Macaque monkeys learn by observation in the 755
ghost display condition in the object-in-place task with differential reward to the observer. 756
Scientific Reports, 9(1), 401. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-36803-4 757
Fitzpatrick, S. (2020). Chimpanzee normativity : Evidence and objections. Biology & Philosophy, 35(4), 758
45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-020-09763-1 759
Frank, E. T., Schmitt, T., Hovestadt, T., Mitesser, O., Stiegler, J., & Linsenmair, K. E. (2017). Saving the 760
injured : Rescue behavior in the termite-hunting ant Megaponera analis. Science Advances, 761
3(4), e1602187. 762
Franks, B., Webb, C., Gagliano, M., & Smuts, B. (2020). Conventional science will not do justice to 763
nonhuman interests : A fresh approach is required. Animal Sentience, 4(27), 17. 764
Furnham, A., & Heyes, C. (1993). Psychology students’ beliefs about animals and animal 765
experimentation. Personality and Individual Differences, 15(1), 110. 766
https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(93)90036-3 767
Galichanin, K., Wang, J., Löfgren, S., & Söderberg, P. (2011). A new universal rat restrainer for 768
ophthalmic research. Acta Ophthalmologica, 89(1), e67e71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-769
3768.2010.01874.x 770
Gallup Jr, G. G., Anderson, J. R., & Shillito, D. J. (2002). The mirror test. The cognitive animal: 771
Empirical and theoretical perspectives on animal cognition, 325333. 772
Gao, J., Su, Y., Tomonaga, M., & Matsuzawa, T. (2018). Learning the rules of the rockpaper–scissors 773
game : Chimpanzees versus children. Primates, 59(1), 717. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-774
017-0620-0 775
Gergely, G., & Jacob, P. (2012). Reasoning about instrumental and communicative agency in human 776
infancy. Advances in child development and behavior, 43, 5994. 777
30
Gillespie, K. A. (2019). For a politicized multispecies ethnography. Politics and Animals, 5, 1732. 778
Glickman, S. E., & Sroges, R. W. (1966). Curiosity in zoo animals. Behaviour, 26(12), 151187. 779
Good, T. L., Sterzinger, N., & Lavigne, A. (2018). Expectation effects : Pygmalion and the initial 20 780
years of research. Educational Research and Evaluation, 24(35), 99123. 781
https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2018.1548817 782
Graham, M. L., Rieke, E. F., Mutch, L. A., Zolondek, E. K., Faig, A. W., DuFour, T. A., Munson, J. W., 783
Kittredge, J. A., & Schuurman, H.-J. (2012). Successful implementation of cooperative 784
handling eliminates the need for restraint in a complex non-human primate disease model. 785
Journal of Medical Primatology, 41(2), 89106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-786
0684.2011.00525.x 787
Grampp, M., Sueur, C., van de Waal, E., & Botting, J. (2019). Social attention biases in juvenile wild 788
vervet monkeys : Implications for socialisation and social learning processes. Primates, 60(3), 789
261275. 790
Grandin, T. (1987). Animal Handling. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice, 3(2), 791
323338. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-0720(15)31155-5 792
Grandin, T. (1989). Behavioral Principles of Livestock Handling. The Professional Animal Scientist, 793
5(2), 111. https://doi.org/10.15232/S1080-7446(15)32304-4 794
Haraway, D. J. (1989). Primate visions : Gender, race, and nature in the world of modern science. 795
Psychology Press. 796
He, L.-W., Zeng, L., Tian, N., Li, Y., He, T., Tan, D.-M., Zhang, Q., & Tan, Y. (2020). Optimization of food 797
deprivation and sucrose preference test in SD rat model undergoing chronic unpredictable 798
mild stress. Animal Models and Experimental Medicine, 3(1), 6978. 799
https://doi.org/10.1002/ame2.12107 800
Hodgetts, T., & Lorimer, J. (2020). Animals’ mobilities. Progress in Human Geography, 44(1), 426. 801
https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132518817829 802
31
Hoffman, J. M., Creevy, K. E., Franks, A., O’Neill, D. G., & Promislow, D. E. L. (2018). The companion 803
dog as a model for human aging and mortality. Aging Cell, 17(3), e12737. 804
https://doi.org/10.1111/acel.12737 805
Honda, Y., Nakamura, S., Ogawa, K., Yoshino, R., Tobler, P. N., Nishimura, Y., & Tsutsui, K.-I. (2021). 806
Changes in beta and high-gamma power in resting-state electrocorticogram induced by 807
repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of primary motor cortex in unanesthetized 808
macaque monkeys. Neuroscience Research, 171, 4148. 809
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2021.02.002 810
Hopper, L. M., Gulli, R. A., Howard, L. H., Kano, F., Krupenye, C., Ryan, A. M., & Paukner, A. (2021). 811
The application of noninvasive, restraint-free eye-tracking methods for use with nonhuman 812
primates. Behavior Research Methods, 53(3), 10031030. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-813
020-01465-6 814
Horschler, D. J., MacLean, E. L., & Santos, L. R. (2020). Advancing Gaze-Based Research on Primate 815
Theory of Mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(10), 778779. 816
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.07.008 817
Huebner, F., Fichtel, C., & Kappeler, P. M. (2018). Linking cognition with fitness in a wild primate : 818
Fitness correlates of problem-solving performance and spatial learning ability. Philosophical 819
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1756), 20170295. 820
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0295 821
Huskisson, S. M., Doelling, C. R., Ross, S. R., & Hopper, L. M. (2021). Assessing the potential impact of 822
zoo visitors on the welfare and cognitive performance of Japanese macaques. Applied Animal 823
Behaviour Science, 243, 105453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105453 824
Huttunen, A. W., Adams, G. K., & Platt, M. L. (2017). Can self-awareness be taught ? Monkeys pass 825
the mirror testAgain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(13), 826
32813283. 827
32
Inoue, S., & Matsuzawa, T. (2007). Working memory of numerals in chimpanzees. Current Biology, 828
17(23), R1004R1005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.10.027 829
Jacob, G., Katti, H., Cherian, T., Das, J., Zhivago, K., & Arun, S. (2021). A naturalistic environment to 830
study visual cognition in unrestrained monkeys. eLife, 10, e63816. 831
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.63816 832
Jacobson, S. L., Kwiatt, A. C., Ross, S. R., & Cronin, K. A. (2019). The effects of cognitive testing on the 833
welfare of zoo-housed Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata). Applied Animal Behaviour 834
Science, 212, 9097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2018.12.014 835
Janson, C., & Byrne, R. (2007). What wild primates know about resources : Opening up the black box. 836
Animal Cognition, 10(3), 357367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-007-0080-9 837
Jensen, K., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Chimpanzees are vengeful but not spiteful. Proceedings of 838
the National Academy of Sciences, 104(32), 1304613050. 839
Jordan, E. J., Völter, C. J., & Seed, A. M. (2022). Do capuchin monkeys (Sapajus apella) use exploration 840
to form intuitions about physical properties? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 113. 841
Kaminski, J., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Chimpanzees know what others know, but not what 842
they believe. Cognition, 109(2), 224234. 843
Kaneko, T., & Tomonaga, M. (2011). The perception of self-agency in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). 844
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278(1725), 36943702. 845
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.0611 846
Kano, F., & Tomonaga, M. (2009). How chimpanzees look at pictures : A comparative eye-tracking 847
study. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276(1664), 19491955. 848
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.1811 849
Kerth, G., Perony, N., & Schweitzer, F. (2011). Bats are able to maintain long-term social relationships 850
despite the high fission–fusion dynamics of their groups. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: 851
Biological Sciences, 278(1719), 27612767. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.2718 852
33
King, A. J., & Sueur, C. (2011). Where Next? Group Coordination and Collective Decision Making by 853
Primates. International Journal of Primatology, 32(6), 12451267. 854
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-011-9526-7 855
King, B. J. (2021). Animals’ Best Friends : Putting Compassion to Work for Animals in Captivity and in 856
the Wild. University of Chicago Press. 857
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo33375440.html 858
Kirksey, S. E., & Helmreich, S. (2010). The Emergence of Multispecies Ethnography. Cultural 859
Anthropology, 25(4), 545576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1360.2010.01069.x 860
Kohda, M., Hotta, T., Takeyama, T., Awata, S., Tanaka, H., Asai, J., & Jordan, A. L. (2019). If a fish can 861
pass the mark test, what are the implications for consciousness and self-awareness testing in 862
animals? PLoS biology, 17(2), e3000021. 863
Krasheninnikova, A., Berardi, R., Lind, M.-A., O’Neill, L., & von Bayern, A. M. (2019). Primate cognition 864
test battery in parrots. Behaviour, 156(58), 721761. 865
Krause, J., & Ruxton, G. D. (2002). Living in groups. Oxford University Press. 866
Krause, S. R. (2013). Beyond non-domination : Agency, inequality and the meaning of freedom. 867
Philosophy & social criticism, 39(2), 187208. 868
Krupenye, C., Kano, F., Hirata, S., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2016). Great apes anticipate that other 869
individuals will act according to false beliefs. Science, 354(6308), 110114. 870
Kumpan, L. T., Smeltzer, E. A., & Teichroeb, J. A. (2020). Animal cognition in the field : Performance of 871
wild vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus pygerythrus) on a reversal learning task. Animal Cognition, 872
23(3), 523534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-020-01356-5 873
Lacreuse, A., Raz, N., Schmidtke, D., Hopkins, W. D., & Herndon, J. G. (2020). Age-related decline in 874
executive function as a hallmark of cognitive ageing in primates : An overview of cognitive 875
and neurobiological studies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological 876
Sciences, 375(1811), 20190618. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0618 877
34
Langlitz, N. (2020). Chimpanzee Culture Wars : Rethinking Human Nature alongside Japanese, 878
European, and American Cultural Primatologists. In Chimpanzee Culture Wars. Princeton 879
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691204260 880
Laule, G. E., Bloomsmith, M. A., & Schapiro, S. J. (2003). The Use of Positive Reinforcement Training 881
Techniques to Enhance the Care, Management, and Welfare of Primates in the Laboratory. 882
Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 6(3), 163. 883
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327604JAWS0603_02 884
Le Maho, Y., Whittington, J. D., Hanuise, N., Pereira, L., Boureau, M., Brucker, M., Chatelain, N., 885
Courtecuisse, J., Crenner, F., Friess, B., Grosbellet, E., Kernaléguen, L., Olivier, F., Saraux, C., 886
Vetter, N., Viblanc, V. A., Thierry, B., Tremblay, P., Groscolas, R., & Le Bohec, C. (2014). 887
Rovers minimize human disturbance in research on wild animals. Nature Methods, 11(12), 888
12421244. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3173 889
Le Neindre, P., Bernard, E., Boissy, A., Boivin, X., Calandreau, L., Delon, N., Deputte, B., Desmoulin-890
canselier, S., Dunier, M., & Faivre, N. (2017). Animal consciousness. Summary of the 891
multidisciplinary assesment. 892
Le Neindre, P., Dunier, M., Larrère, R., & Prunet, P. (2018). La conscience des animaux (Éditions 893
Quæ). Quae. https://www.quae.com/produit/1520/9782759228713/la-conscience-des-894
animaux 895
Leca, J.-B., Gunst, N., & Huffman, M. A. (2007). Japanese macaque cultures : Inter-and intra-troop 896
behavioural variability of stone handling patterns across 10 troops. Behaviour, 144(3), 897
251281. 898
Lecorps, B., Weary, D. M., & von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. (2021). Captivity-Induced Depression in 899
Animals. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.03.010 900
Levé, M., Sueur, C., Petit, O., Matsuzawa, T., & Hirata, S. (2016). Social grooming network in captive 901
chimpanzees : Does the wild or captive origin of group members affect sociality? Primates; 902
Journal of Primatology, 57(1), 7382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-015-0494-y 903
35
Liu, X., Liu, T., & Huang, X. (2017). Commentary : Spontaneous expression of mirror self-recognition 904
in monkeys after learning precise visual-proprioceptive association for mirror images. 905
Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1151. 906
Lopes, P. C., & König, B. (2020). Wild mice with different social network sizes vary in brain gene 907
expression. BMC Genomics, 21(1), 506. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-06911-5 908
Low, P., Panksepp, J., Reiss, D., Edelman, D., Van Swinderen, B., & Koch, C. (2012). The Cambridge 909
declaration on consciousness. 12. 910
Machado, C. J., & Nelson, E. E. (2011). Eye-tracking with nonhuman primates is now more accessible 911
than ever before. American Journal of Primatology, 73(6), 562569. 912
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20928 913
MacKinnon, K. C., & Riley, E. P. (2010). Field primatology of today : Current ethical issues. 914
Maeda, T., Ochi, S., Ringhofer, M., Sosa, S., Sueur, C., Hirata, S., & Yamamoto, S. (2021). Aerial drone 915
observations identified a multilevel society in feral horses. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 71. 916
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79790-1 917
Maeda, T., Sueur, C., Hirata, S., & Yamamoto, S. (2021). Behavioural synchronization in a multilevel 918
society of feral horses. PLOS ONE, 16(10), e0258944. 919
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258944 920
Martinet, L., Sueur, C., Hirata, S., Hosselet, J., Matsuzawa, T., & Pelé, M. (2021). New indices to 921
characterize drawing behavior in humans ( Homo sapiens ) and chimpanzees ( Pan 922
troglodytes ). Scientific Reports, 11(1), 3860. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-83043-0 923
Mason, S., Premereur, E., Pelekanos, V., Emberton, A., Honess, P., & Mitchell, A. S. (2019). Effective 924
chair training methods for neuroscience research involving rhesus macaques (Macaca 925
mulatta). Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 317, 8293. 926
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2019.02.001 927
Massen, J. J., & Koski, S. E. (2014). Chimps of a feather sit together : Chimpanzee friendships are 928
based on homophily in personality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35(1), 18. 929
36
Matsuzawa, T. (2013). Evolution of the brain and social behavior in chimpanzees. Current opinion in 930
neurobiology, 23(3), 443449. 931
Matsuzawa, T. (2016a). Euthanasia is not an option : 10 years’ care of a chimpanzee with acute 932
tetraparesis. 933
Matsuzawa, T. (2016b). SAGA and GAIN for great apes. 934
Matsuzawa, T. (2017). Horse cognition and behavior from the perspective of primatology. Primates, 935
58(4), 473477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-017-0632-9 936
Matsuzawa, T. (2020). WISH cages : Constructing multiple habitats for captive chimpanzees. 937
Primates, 61(2), 139148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-020-00806-5 938
McEwen, E. S., Warren, E., Tenpas, S., Jones, B., Durdevic, K., Rapport Munro, E., & Call, J. (2022). 939
Primate cognition in zoos : Reviewing the impact of zoo-based research over 15 years. 940
American Journal of Primatology, n/a(n/a), e23369. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.23369 941
McFarland, S. E., & Hediger, R. (2009). Animals and agency : An interdisciplinary exploration (Vol. 8). 942
Brill. 943
McMillan, J. L., Bloomsmith, M. A., & Prescott, M. J. (2017). An International Survey of Approaches to 944
Chair Restraint of Nonhuman Primates. Comparative medicine, 67(5), 442451. 945
McMillan, J. L., Perlman, J. E., Galvan, A., Wichmann, T., & Bloomsmith, M. A. (2014). Refining the 946
pole-and-collar method of restraint : Emphasizing the use of positive training techniques with 947
rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). Journal of the American Association for Laboratory 948
Animal Science, 53(1), 6168. 949
Meguerditchian, A., Marie, D., Margiotoudi, K., Roth, M., Nazarian, B., Anton, J.-L., & Claidière, N. 950
(2021). Baboons (Papio anubis) living in larger social groups have bigger brains. Evolution and 951
Human Behavior, 42(1), 3034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2020.06.010 952
Meijer, E. (2019). When Animals Speak : Toward an Interspecies Democracy. NYU Press. 953
Merleau-Ponty, M. (2017). Causeries 1948. Média Diffusion. 954
37
Miele, J., Tingley, L., Kimball, R., & Broida, J. (1993). Personality Differences between Pro- and 955
Antivivisectionists. Society & Animals, 1(2), 129144. 956
https://doi.org/10.1163/156853093X00037 957
Murphy, H. W., Danforth, M. D., & Clyde, V. L. (2018). The Great Ape Heart Project. International Zoo 958
Yearbook, 52(1), 103112. https://doi.org/10.1111/izy.12180 959
Muschel, I. J. (1984). Pet Therapy with Terminal Cancer Patients. Social Casework, 65(8), 451458. 960
https://doi.org/10.1177/104438948406500801 961
Muth, F., Cooper, T. R., Bonilla, R. F., & Leonard, A. S. (2018). A novel protocol for studying bee 962
cognition in the wild. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1), 7887. 963
https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12852 964
Newport, C., Wallis, G., Reshitnyk, Y., & Siebeck, U. E. (2016). Discrimination of human faces by 965
archerfish (Toxotes chatareus). Scientific reports, 6(1), 17. 966
Nielsen, B. (2020). Asking Animals : An Introduction to Animal Behaviour Testing. CABI. 967
Nielsen, B. L. (2018). Making sense of it all : The importance of taking into account the sensory 968
abilities of animals in their housing and management. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 205, 969
175180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2018.04.013 970
Ogden, L. A., Hall, B., & Tanita, K. (2013). Animals, Plants, People, and Things : A Review of 971
Multispecies Ethnography. Environment and Society, 4(1), 524. 972
https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2013.040102 973
O’Hara, M., Mioduszewska, B., Mundry, R., Yohanna, Haryoko, T., Rachmatika, R., Prawiradilaga, D. 974
M., Huber, L., & Auersperg, A. M. I. (2021). Wild Goffin’s cockatoos flexibly manufacture and 975
use tool sets. Current Biology, 31(20), 4512-4520.e6. 976
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.08.009 977
Park, G., & Evans, G. W. (2016). Environmental stressors, urban design and planning : Implications for 978
human behaviour and health. Journal of Urban Design, 21(4), 453470. 979
https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2016.1194189 980
38
Pasquaretta, C., Battesti, M., Klenschi, E., Bousquet, C. A. H., Sueur, C., & Mery, F. (2016). How social 981
network structure affects decision-making in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. R. Soc. B, 982
283(1826), 20152954. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.2954 983
Pasquaretta, C., Jeanson, R., Andalo, C., Chittka, L., & Lihoreau, M. (2017). Analysing plantpollinator 984
interactions with spatial movement networks. Ecological Entomology, 42, 417. 985
https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12446 986
Patter, L. E. V., & Blattner, C. (2020). Advancing Ethical Principles for Non-Invasive, Respectful 987
Research with Nonhuman Animal Participants. Society & Animals, 28(2), 171190. 988
https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-00001810 989
Patterson, F. G. P., & Cohn, R. H. (1990). Language acquisition by a lowland gorilla: Koko’s first ten 990
years of vocabulary development. WORD, 41(2), 97143. 991
https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1990.11435816 992
Pedersen, J. (2020). Nonhuman Primates and Language : Primates Raised by Humans. In The 993
International Encyclopedia of Linguistic Anthropology (p. 19). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 994
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118786093.iela0289 995
Pennisi, A., & Giallongo, L. (2018). Animal Biopolitics : How Animals Vote. International Journal for 996
the Semiotics of Law-Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique, 31(3), 491499. 997
Pepperberg, I. M. (2006). Intelligence and rationality in parrots. 998
Pereira, M., Nogueira, H., & Padez, C. (2019). The role of urban design in childhood obesity : A case 999
study in Lisbon, Portugal. American Journal of Human Biology, 31(3), e23220. 1000
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.23220 1001
Péron, F. (2012). Language-trained animals : A window to the « black box ». International Journal of 1002
Intelligence Science, 2(4A), 149159. https://doi.org/10.4236/ijis.2012.224020 1003
Pomerantz, O., Baker, K. C., Bellanca, R. U., Bloomsmith, M. A., Coleman, K., Hutchinson, E. K., Pierre, 1004
P. J., Weed, J. L., & Consortium, N. P. R. C. B. M. (2022). Improving transparencyA call to 1005
include social housing information in biomedical research articles involving nonhuman 1006
39
primates. American Journal of Primatology, n/a(n/a), e23378. 1007
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.23378 1008
Prescott, M., & Buchanan-Smith, H. (2007). Training laboratory-housed non-human primates, part I: a 1009
UK survey. ANIMAL WELFARE-POTTERS BAR THEN WHEATHAMPSTEAD-, 16(1), 21. 1010
Prescott, M. J. (2016). Online resources for improving the care and use of non-human primates in 1011
research. Primate Biology, 3(2), 33. 1012
Prescott, M. J., Brown, V. J., Flecknell, P. A., Gaffan, D., Garrod, K., Lemon, R. N., Parker, A. J., Ryder, 1013
K., Schultz, W., & Scott, L. (2010). Refinement of the use of food and fluid control as 1014
motivational tools for macaques used in behavioural neuroscience research : Report of a 1015
Working Group of the NC3Rs. Journal of neuroscience methods, 193(2), 167188. 1016
Prescott, M. J., & Buchanan-Smith, H. M. (2003). Training nonhuman primates using positive 1017
reinforcement techniques. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 6(3), 157161. 1018
Pritchard, D. J., Hurly, T. A., Tello-Ramos, M. C., & Healy, S. D. (2016). Why study cognition in the wild 1019
(and how to test it)? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 105(1), 4155. 1020
https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.195 1021
Ramos, A., Bousquet, C. A. H., & Sueur, C. (2021). How leadership could be used to manage domestic 1022
and wild ungulate herds. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 239, 105326. 1023
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105326 1024
Ramos, A., Manizan, L., Rodriguez, E., Kemp, Y. J. M., & Sueur, C. (2018). How can leadership 1025
processes in European bison be used to improve the management of free-roaming herds. 1026
European Journal of Wildlife Research, 64(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-018-1175-0 1027
Raulo, A., Allen, B. E., Troitsky, T., Husby, A., Firth, J. A., Coulson, T., & Knowles, S. C. L. (2021). Social 1028
networks strongly predict the gut microbiota of wild mice. The ISME Journal, 15(9), 1029
26012613. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-021-00949-3 1030
Rault, J.-L. (2012). Friends with benefits : Social support and its relevance for farm animal welfare. 1031
Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 136(1), 114. 1032
40
Reddy, S. M. W., Montambault, J., Masuda, Y. J., Keenan, E., Butler, W., Fisher, J. R. B., Asah, S. T., & 1033
Gneezy, A. (2017). Advancing Conservation by Understanding and Influencing Human 1034
Behavior. Conservation Letters, 10(2), 248256. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12252 1035
Richardson, T. O., Kay, T., Braunschweig, R., Journeau, O., Ruegg, M., McGregor, S., De Los Rios, P., & 1036
Keller, L. (2020). Ant Behavioral Maturation Is Mediated by a Stochastic Transition between 1037
Two Fundamental States. Current Biology, 30, 18. 1038
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.05.038 1039
Rosati, A. G., Hagberg, L., Enigk, D. K., Otali, E., Thompson, M. E., Muller, M. N., Wrangham, R. W., & 1040
Machanda, Z. P. (2020). Social selectivity in aging wild chimpanzees. Science, 370(6515), 1041
473476. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz9129 1042
Ryan, A. M., Freeman, S. M., Murai, T., Lau, A. R., Palumbo, M. C., Hogrefe, C. E., Bales, K. L., & 1043
Bauman, M. D. (2019). Non-invasive Eye Tracking Methods for New World and Old World 1044
Monkeys. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 13. 1045
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2019.00039 1046
Sakai, T., Hirata, S., Fuwa, K., Sugama, K., Kusunoki, K., Makishima, H., Eguchi, T., Yamada, S., Ogihara, 1047
N., & Takeshita, H. (2012). Fetal brain development in chimpanzees versus humans. Current 1048
Biology, 22(18), R791R792. 1049
Sakai, T., Mikami, A., Tomonaga, M., Matsui, M., Suzuki, J., Hamada, Y., Tanaka, M., Miyabe-1050
Nishiwaki, T., Makishima, H., & Nakatsukasa, M. (2011). Differential prefrontal white matter 1051
development in chimpanzees and humans. Current Biology, 21(16), 13971402. 1052
Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S., & Lewin, R. (1994). Kanzi : The ape at the brink of the human mind. Wiley. 1053
Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S., Rumbaugh, D. M., & Fields, W. M. (2006). Language as a window on 1054
rationality. 1055
Scanes, C. G. (2018). Animal Agriculture : Livestock, Poultry, and Fish Aquaculture. In Animals and 1056
Human Society (p. 179). Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-805247-1.00007-1 1057
41
Schapiro, S. J. (2017). Introduction to the handbook of primate behavioral management. In Handbook 1058
of primate behavioral management (p. 38). CRC Press. 1059
Schapiro, S. J., Bloomsmith, M. A., & Laule, G. E. (2003). Positive Reinforcement Training As a 1060
Technique to Alter Nonhuman Primate Behavior : Quantitative Assessments of Effectiveness. 1061
Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 6(3), 175. 1062
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327604JAWS0603_03 1063
Schmitt, V., Pankau, B., & Fischer, J. (2012). Old World Monkeys Compare to Apes in the Primate 1064
Cognition Test Battery. PLOS ONE, 7(4), e32024. 1065
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032024 1066
Schofield, D., Nagrani, A., Zisserman, A., Hayashi, M., Matsuzawa, T., Biro, D., & Carvalho, S. (2019). 1067
Chimpanzee face recognition from videos in the wild using deep learning. Science Advances, 1068
5(9), eaaw0736. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw0736 1069
Shaw, R. C. (2017). Testing cognition in the wild : Factors affecting performance and individual 1070
consistency in two measures of avian cognition. Behavioural Processes, 134, 3136. 1071
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2016.06.004 1072
Silk, J. B. (2002). Females, food, family, and friendship. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and 1073
Reviews, 11(3), 8587. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.10011 1074
Sinha, A. (2005). Not in their genes : Phenotypic flexibility, behavioural traditions and cultural 1075
evolution in wild bonnet macaques. Journal of Biosciences, 30(1), 5164. 1076
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02705150 1077
Slater, H., Milne, A. E., Wilson, B., Muers, R. S., Balezeau, F., Hunter, D., Thiele, A., Griffiths, T. D., & 1078
Petkov, C. I. (2016). Individually customisable non-invasive head immobilisation system for 1079
non-human primates with an option for voluntary engagement. Journal of Neuroscience 1080
Methods, 269, 4660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2016.05.009 1081
42
Slutzky, M. W., Jordan, L. R., Bauman, M. J., & Miller, L. E. (2010). A new rodent behavioral paradigm 1082
for studying forelimb movement. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 192(2), 228232. 1083
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.07.040 1084
Sober, E. (2009). Parsimony and Models of Animal Minds. In R. W. Lurz (Éd.), The Philosophy of 1085
Animal Minds (p. 237). Cambridge University Press. 1086
Sosa, S. O., Pelé, M., Debergue, É., Kuntz, C., Keller, B., Robic, F., Siegwalt-Baudin, F., Richer, C., 1087
Ramos, A., & Sueur, C. (2019). Impact of Group Management and Transfer on Individual 1088
Sociality in Highland Cattle (Bos taurus). Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 6, 183. 1089
https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00183 1090
Soulsbury, C. D., Gray, H. E., Smith, L. M., Braithwaite, V., Cotter, S. C., Elwood, R. W., Wilkinson, A., & 1091
Collins, L. M. (2020). The welfare and ethics of research involving wild animals : A primer. 1092
Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 11(10), 11641181. 1093
Sueur, C. (2011). A Non-Lévy Random Walk in Chacma Baboons : What Does It Mean? PLoS ONE, 6(1), 1094
e16131. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016131 1095
SUEUR, C. (2015). Analyse des réseaux sociaux appliquée à l’éthologie et l’écologie. Editions 1096
Matériologiques. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4100.5601 1097
Sueur, C., Bousquet, C., Espinosa, R., & Deneubourg, J.-L. (2021). Improving human collective 1098
decision-making through animal and artificial intelligence. https://hal.archives-1099
ouvertes.fr/hal-03299087 1100
Sueur, C., Forin-Wiart, M.-A., & Pelé, M. (2020). Do They Really Try to Save Their Buddy? 1101
Anthropomorphism about Animal Epimeletic Behaviours. 1102
https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202008.0711.v1 1103
Sueur, C., & Pelé, M. (2017). Editorial : Anthropomorphism, between merits and demerits. Lettre du 1104
CEERE, Centre Européen d’Enseignement et de Recherche en Ethique, 107, 1. 1105
Taylor, P. W. (2011). Respect for nature : A theory of environmental ethics. Princeton University Press. 1106
43
Testard, C., Tremblay, S., & Platt, M. (2021). From the field to the lab and back : Neuroethology of 1107
primate social behavior. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 68, 7683. 1108
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2021.01.005 1109
Thaler, R. H. (2008). Nudge : Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University 1110
Press New Haven & London. 1111
Tokuyama, N., Emikey, B., Bafike, B., Isolumbo, B., Iyokango, B., Mulavwa, M. N., & Furuichi, T. 1112
(2012). Bonobos apparently search for a lost member injured by a snare. Primates, 53(3), 1113
215219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-012-0298-2 1114
Tomasello, M., & Vaish, A. (2013). Origins of human cooperation and morality. Annual review of 1115
psychology, 64, 231255. 1116
Tomonaga, M., Kumazaki, K., Camus, F., Nicod, S., Pereira, C., & Matsuzawa, T. (2015). A horse’s eye 1117
view : Size and shape discrimination compared with other mammals. Biology Letters, 11(11), 1118
20150701. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2015.0701 1119
Tsuji, Y., Shimoda-Ishiguro, M., Ohnishi, N., & Takatsuki, S. (2007). A friend in need is a friend indeed : 1120
Feeding association between Japanese macaques and sika deer. Acta Theriologica, 52(4), 1121
427434. 1122
Ueno, A., Hirata, S., Fuwa, K., Sugama, K., Kusunoki, K., Matsuda, G., Fukushima, H., Hiraki, K., 1123
Tomonaga, M., & Hasegawa, T. (2010). Brain activity in an awake chimpanzee in response to 1124
the sound of her own name. Biology letters, 6(3), 311313. 1125
van de Waal, E., Borgeaud, C., & Whiten, A. (2013). Potent social learning and conformity shape a 1126
wild primate’s foraging decisions. Science, 340(6131), 483485. 1127
Verhaeghen, P., Martin, M., & Sędek, G. (2012). Reconnecting cognition in the lab and cognition in 1128
real life : The role of compensatory social and motivational factors in explaining how 1129
cognition ages in the wild. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 19(12), 112. 1130
https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2011.645009 1131
44
Visalberghi, E., Addessi, E., Truppa, V., Spagnoletti, N., Ottoni, E., Izar, P., & Fragaszy, D. (2009). 1132
Selection of effective stone tools by wild bearded capuchin monkeys. Current Biology, 19(3), 1133
213217. 1134
Voelkl, B., Altman, N. S., Forsman, A., Forstmeier, W., Gurevitch, J., Jaric, I., Karp, N. A., Kas, M. J., 1135
Schielzeth, H., Van de Casteele, T., & Würbel, H. (2020). Reproducibility of animal research in 1136
light of biological variation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 21(7), 384393. 1137
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-020-0313-3 1138
Voelkl, B., Würbel, H., Krzywinski, M., & Altman, N. (2021). The standardization fallacy. Nature 1139
Methods, 18(1), 57. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-020-01036-9 1140
Ward, A. J. W., & Webster, M. (2016). Sociality : The behaviour of group-living animals. Springer. 1141
Washburn, D. A., Rulon, M. J., & Gulledge, J. P. (2004). A new breed of computer users : Rats control 1142
a cursor via joystick manipulation. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 1143
36(2), 173179. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195562 1144
Webb, C. E., Woodford, P., & Huchard, E. (2019). Animal ethics and behavioral science : An overdue 1145
discussion. BioScience, 69(10), 778788. 1146
Wendler, H. (2020). Philosophical Primatology : Reflections on Theses of Anthropological Difference, 1147
the Logic of Anthropomorphism and Anthropodenial, and the Self-Other Category Mistake 1148
Within the Scope of Cognitive Primate Research. Biological Theory, 15(2), 6182. 1149
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-019-00337-3 1150
Whiten, A. (2011). The scope of culture in chimpanzees, humans and ancestral apes. Philosophical 1151
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1567), 9971007. 1152
Whiten, A., Custance, D. M., Gomez, J.-C., Teixidor, P., & Bard, K. A. (1996). Imitative learning of 1153
artificial fruit processing in children (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). 1154
Journal of Comparative Psychology, 110(1), 314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.110.1.3 1155
45
Wild, B., Dormagen, D. M., Zachariae, A., Smith, M. L., Traynor, K. S., Brockmann, D., Couzin, I. D., & 1156
Landgraf, T. (2021). Social networks predict the life and death of honey bees. Nature 1157
Communications, 12(1), 1110. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21212-5 1158
Würbel, H. (2000). Behaviour and the standardization fallacy. Nature Genetics, 26(3), 263263. 1159
https://doi.org/10.1038/81541 1160
Yang, J., Huber, L., Yu, Y., & Bandettini, P. A. (2021). Linking cortical circuit models to human 1161
cognition with laminar fMRI. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 128, 467478. 1162
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.07.005 1163
Yang, Q., Lin, Z., Zhang, W., Li, J., Chen, X., Zhang, J., & Yang, T. (2022). Monkey plays Pac-Man with 1164
compositional strategies and hierarchical decision-making. eLife, 11, e74500. 1165
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.74500 1166
Yates, T. S., Ellis, C. T., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2021). The promise of awake behaving infant fMRI as a 1167
deep measure of cognition. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 40, 511. 1168
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.11.007 1169
Zeagler, C., Gilliland, S., Freil, L., Starner, T., & Jackson, M. (2014). Going to the dogs : Towards an 1170
interactive touchscreen interface for working dogs. 497507. 1171
1172
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Humans can often handle daunting tasks with ease by developing a set of strategies to reduce decision making into simpler problems. The ability to use heuristic strategies demands an advanced level of intelligence and has not been demonstrated in animals. Here, we trained macaque monkeys to play the classic video game Pac-Man. The monkeys' decision-making may be described with a strategy-based hierarchical decision-making model with over 90% accuracy. The model reveals that the monkeys adopted the take-the-best heuristic by using one dominating strategy for their decision-making at a time and formed compound strategies by assembling the basis strategies to handle particular game situations. With the model, the computationally complex but fully quantifiable Pac-Man behavior paradigm provides a new approach to understanding animals' advanced cognition.
Article
Full-text available
Whilst fundamental to human societies, collective decision-making such as voting systems can lead to non-efficient decisions, as past climate policies demonstrate. Current systems are harshly criticised for the way they consider voters needs and knowledge. Collective decision-making is central in human societies but also occurs in animal groups mostly when animals need to choose when and where to move. In these societies, animals balance between the needs of the group members and their own needs and rely on each individuals (partial) knowledge. We argue that non-human animals and humans share similar collective decision processes, among which are agenda-setting, deliberation and voting. Recent works in artificial intelligence have sought to improve decision-making in human groups, sometimes inspired by animals decision-making systems. We discuss here how our societies could benefit from recent advances in ethology and artificial intelligence to improve our collective decision-making system.
Article
Full-text available
The use of different tools to achieve a single goal is considered unique to human and primate technology. To unravel the origins of such complex behaviors, it is crucial to investigate tool use that is not necessary for a species’ survival. These cases can be assumed to have emerged innovatively and be applied flexibly, thus emphasizing creativity and intelligence. However, it is intrinsically challenging to record tool innovations in natural settings that do not occur species-wide. Here, we report the discovery of two distinct tool manufacture methods and the use of tool sets in wild Goffin’s cockatoos (Cacatua goffiniana). Up to three types of wooden tools, differing in their physical properties and each serving a different function, were manufactured and employed to extract embedded seed matter of Cerbera manghas. While Goffin’s cockatoos do not depend on tool-obtained resources, repeated observations of two temporarily captive wild birds and indications from free-ranging individuals suggest this behavior occurs in the wild, albeit not species-wide. The use of a tool set in a non-primate implies convergent evolution of advanced tool use. Furthermore, these observations demonstrate how a species without hands can achieve dexterity in a high-precision task. The presence of flexible use and manufacture of tool sets in animals distantly related to humans significantly diversifies the phylogenetic landscape of technology and opens multiple avenues for future research. Video abstract https://www.cell.com/cms/asset/61226912-684f-4b2b-8780-076413873401/mmc8.mp4 Loading ... (mp4, 41.8 MB) Download video
Article
Full-text available
Laboratory animal research has provided significant knowledge into the function of cortical circuits at the laminar level, which has yet to be fully leveraged towards insights about human brain function on a similar spatiotemporal scale. The use of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in conjunction with neural models provides new opportunities to gain important insights from current knowledge. During the last five years, human studies have demonstrated the value of high-resolution fMRI to study laminar-specific activity in the human brain. This is mostly performed at ultra-high-field strengths (≥ 7 Tesla) and is known as laminar fMRI. Advancements in laminar fMRI are beginning to open new possibilities for studying questions in basic cognitive neuroscience. In this paper, we first review recent methodological advances in laminar fMRI and describe recent human laminar fMRI studies. Then, we discuss how the use of laminar fMRI can help bridge the gap between cortical circuit models and human cognition.
Article
Full-text available
In increasingly anthropized landscapes, it is essential to understand animal behaviour, and especially the movement patterns of domestic and wild species to ensure their management and conservation. More specifically, cohabitation between human populations and wildlife could be improved through the study of habitat use by groups of animals in terms of decision-making processes and leadership phenomena. Landscape anthropization particularly affects ungulates due to the increasing rarity of available territories for the grazing of domestic herds or the reintroduction of wild ones. To avoid damage to agricultural and private land, most herbivores are managed by herders, or contained in enclosed areas. Although this conventional management method is efficient, fences are costly and restrictive and contribute to the loss of genetic diversity by isolating other wild animal populations. A new system of herd management would be to replace conventional fences with virtual fencing systems to manage species of interest. This innovative method consists of GPS systems with a warning and punishing device attached to the animal that is triggered when the animal approaches the virtual limits of allocated territory. The most consistent way to control a group using virtual fences would be to fit the device on the identified leaders, who influence overall group decisions. In ungulates, older dominant females are generally more likely to lead collective movements and be followed by other group members because of their greater knowledge of the surrounding environment, their higher physiological needs during calving and their numerous social relationships in the group. These individual characteristics make them key individuals in the organisation of social groups, so they could be targeted for the development of virtual fence systems and the management of wildlife and livestock.
Article
Full-text available
The mammalian gut teems with microbes, yet how hosts acquire these symbionts remains poorly understood. Research in primates suggests that microbes can be picked up via social contact, but the role of social interactions in non-group-living species remains underexplored. Here, we use a passive tracking system to collect high resolution spatiotemporal activity data from wild mice ( Apodemus sylvaticus ). Social network analysis revealed social association strength to be the strongest predictor of microbiota similarity among individuals, controlling for factors including spatial proximity and kinship, which had far smaller or nonsignificant effects. This social effect was limited to interactions involving males (male-male and male-female), implicating sex-dependent behaviours as driving processes. Social network position also predicted microbiota richness, with well-connected individuals having the most diverse microbiotas. Overall, these findings suggest social contact provides a key transmission pathway for gut symbionts even in relatively asocial mammals, that strongly shapes the adult gut microbiota. This work underlines the potential for individuals to pick up beneficial symbionts as well as pathogens from social interactions.
Article
Full-text available
In complex societies, individuals’ roles are reflected by interactions with other conspecifics. Honey bees (Apis mellifera) generally change tasks as they age, but developmental trajectories of individuals can vary drastically due to physiological and environmental factors. We introduce a succinct descriptor of an individual’s social network that can be obtained without interfering with the colony. This ‘network age’ accurately predicts task allocation, survival, activity patterns, and future behavior. We analyze developmental trajectories of multiple cohorts of individuals in a natural setting and identify distinct developmental pathways and critical life changes. Our findings suggest a high stability in task allocation on an individual level. We show that our method is versatile and can extract different properties from social networks, opening up a broad range of future studies. Our approach highlights the relationship of social interactions and individual traits, and provides a scalable technique for understanding how complex social systems function.
Article
Full-text available
The ability of two Panepinto micro pigs and two Yorkshire pigs (Sus scrofa) to acquire a joystick-operated video-game task was investigated. Subjects were trained to manipulate a joystick that controlled movement of a cursor displayed on a computer monitor. The pigs were required to move the cursor to make contact with three-, two-, or one-walled targets randomly allocated for position on the monitor, and a reward was provided if the cursor collided with a target. The video-task acquisition required conceptual understanding of the task, as well as skilled motor performance. Terminal performance revealed that all pigs were significantly above chance on first attempts to contact one-walled targets (p < 0.05). These results indicate that despite dexterity and visual constraints, pigs have the capacity to acquire a joystick-operated video-game task. Limitations in the joystick methodology suggest that future studies of the cognitive capacities of pigs and other domestic species may benefit from the use of touchscreens or other advanced computer-interfaced technology.
Article
The remarkable ecological success of social insects is often attributed to their advanced division of labor, which is closely associated with temporal polyethism in which workers transition between different tasks as they age. Young nurses are typically found deep within the nest where they tend to the queen and the brood, whereas older foragers are found near the entrance and outside the nest.1-3 However, the individual-level maturation dynamics remain poorly understood because following individuals over relevant timescales is difficult; hence, previous experimental studies used same-age cohort designs.4-15 To address this, we used an automated tracking system to follow >500 individuals over >100 days and constructed networks of physical contacts to provide a continuous measure of worker social maturity. These analyses revealed that most workers occupied one of two steady states, namely a low-maturity nurse state and a high-maturity forager state, with the remaining workers rapidly transitioning between these states. There was considerable variation in the age at transition, and, surprisingly, the transition probability was age independent. This suggests that the transition is largely stochastic rather than a hard-wired age-dependent physiological change. Despite the variation in timing, the transition dynamics were highly stereotyped. Transitioning workers moved from the nurse to the forager state according to an S-shaped trajectory, and only began foraging after completing the transition. Stochastic switching, which occurs in many other biological systems, may provide ant colonies with robustness to extrinsic perturbations by allowing the colony to decouple its division of labor from its demography.
Article
Social mammals with more numerous and stronger social relationships live longer, healthier lives. Despite the established importance of social relationships, our understanding of the neurobiological mechanisms by which they are pursued, formed, and maintained in primates remains largely confined to highly controlled laboratory settings which do not allow natural, dynamic social interactions to unfold. In this review, we argue that the neurobiological study of primate social behavior would benefit from adopting a neuroethological approach, that is, a perspective grounded in natural, species-typical behavior, with careful selection of animal models according to the scientific question at hand. We highlight macaques and marmosets as key animal models for human social behavior and summarize recent findings in the social domain for both species. We then review pioneering studies of dynamic social behaviors in small animals, which can inspire studies in larger primates where the technological landscape is now ripe for an ethological overhaul.