Explore the vast range of titles available.

Human social life depends on theory of mind, the ability to attribute mental states to oneself and others. A signature of theory of mind, false belief understanding, requires representing others’ views of the world, even when they conflict with one’s own. After decades of research, it remains controversial whether any nonhuman species possess a theory of mind. One challenge to positive evidence of animal theory of mind, the behavior-rule account, holds that animals solve such tasks by responding to others’ behavioral cues rather than their mental states. We distinguish these hypotheses by implementing a version of the “goggles” test, which asks whether, in the absence of any additional behavioral cues, animals can use their own self-experience of a novel barrier being translucent or opaque to determine whether another agent can see through the same barrier. We incorporated this paradigm into an established anticipatory-looking false-belief test for great apes. In a between-subjects design, apes experienced a novel barrier as either translucent or opaque, although both looked identical from afar. While being eye tracked, all apes then watched a video in which an actor saw an object hidden under 1 of 2 identical boxes. The actor then scuttled behind the novel barrier, at which point the object was relocated and then removed. Only apes who experienced the barrier as opaque visually anticipated that the actor would mistakenly search for the object in its previous location. Great apes, therefore, appeared to attribute differential visual access based specifically on their own past perceptual experience to anticipate an agent’s actions in a false-belief test.

Social primates must recognise developmental stages of other conspecifics in order to behave appropriately. Infant faces have peculiar morphological characteristics—relatively large eyes, a small nose, and small mouth—known as baby schema. In addition, the infant faces of many primate species have unique skin coloration. However, it is unclear which features serve as critical cues for chimpanzees to recognise developmental changes in their faces. The present study aimed to investigate the relative contributions of facial shape and colour to age categorisation in chimpanzees. We used a symbolic matching-to-sample task in which chimpanzees were trained to discriminate between adult and infant faces. Then, we tested how their age category judgments transferred to a series of morphed faces which systematically differed in facial shape and colour. Statistical image quantification analysis revealed significant differences both in shape and colour between adult and infant faces. However, we found that facial coloration contributed to age categorisation in chimpanzees more than facial shape. Our results showed that chimpanzees use unique infantile facial coloration as a salient cue when discriminating between adult and infant faces. The display of their developmental stages through facial colour may help chimpanzees to induce appropriate behaviour from other individuals.

Both humans and chimpanzees have better performances when recognizing faces or bodies when the stimuli are upright compared to inverted. This is called the inversion effect. It suggests that these two species use a specific way to process faces and bodies. Previous research has suggested that humans also show the inversion effect to objects that they have expertise about, and this is called the expert effect. We investigated whether chimpanzees show the expert effect and how humans and chimpanzees differ by testing chimpanzees (human experts) with human body stimuli and testing humans (chimpanzee experts) with chimpanzee and human body stimuli in body recognition tasks. The main finding was that humans (chimpanzee experts) showed the expert effect to chimpanzee bodies, while chimpanzees partially showed it to human bodies. This suggests that compared with chimpanzees, the special processing in humans can be more flexibly tuned for other objects. We also tested humans that were not chimpanzee experts using chimpanzee body stimuli. Although they showed similar performances as the chimpanzee experts, the two groups had differences in some situations, indicating the effect of expertise. This study revealed the important role of experience in object processing in humans, and our evolutionary relatives, chimpanzees.

Bodies are important social cues for animals. Body recognition in humans is deteriorated by inversion. This inversion effect suggests the configural processing of bodies, which is different from the processing used for other objects. However, it is not known if this type of body processing exists in non-human primates. We tested seven chimpanzees using upright and inverted chimpanzee body stimuli and other stimuli in matching-to-sample tasks to examine the body inversion effect and the body parts that invoke it. Our results reflected the body inversion effect for intact chimpanzee bodies, bodies with complete body contours, and bodies with clear faces but not for the objects and other conditions that did not present complete body contours and clear faces. The results show that chimpanzees share configural body processing with humans and that bodies are special to them compared with other objects. The results also revealed the functions of faces and body contours in configural processing by chimpanzees.

When a row of objects surrounded by a frame suddenly shifts a certain distance so that part of the row is occluded by the frame, humans perceive ambiguous apparent motion either to the left or the right. However, when the objects have “directionality,” humans perceive them as moving forward in the direction in which they are pointing, which is termed forward-facing motion bias. In the present study, five experiments were conducted to address whether, and if so how, physical properties or prior knowledge about the objects affected the perception of their apparent motion in two juvenile chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). In experiment 1, the chimpanzees did not show a clear forward-facing bias in judging the direction of motion when directed triangles were presented, whereas the human participants did. In contrast, when pictures of the lateral view of chimpanzees with quadrupedal postures were shown, there was a clear bias for going “forward” with regards to the side with the head (experiment 2). We presented pictures of dogs looking back to explore what features caused the forward-facing motion bias (experiment 3). Chimpanzees did not show any bias for these stimuli, suggesting that the direction of the head and body interactively affected the perceptual bias. Experiment 4 tested the role of the head and found that only the lateral view of the heads of chimpanzees or humans caused the bias (experiment 4). Additional tests also showed that the chimpanzees could not solve the task based only on the direction of the stimuli without motion (experiment 5). These results indicate that the perception of motion in the chimpanzees was affected by the biological features of the stimuli, suggesting their prior knowledge of the “body” from a biological (morphological and kinetic) perspective.

Two adult chimpanzees were trained on a relative “numerosity” discrimination task. In each trial, two arrays containing different numbers of red dots were presented on a CRT monitor. The subjects were required to choose the array containing the larger number of dots. In Experiment 1, using numerosities between 1 and 8, 28 different pairs were presented repeatedly, and accuracy scores were analyzed to explore which cues the chimpanzee subjects utilized to perform the task. Multiple regression analyses revealed that the subjects’ performance was (1) not simply controlled by the “numerical” difference between arrays, but that it was (2) best described by Fechner’s Law–that is accuracy increased linearly with the logarithmic value of the numerical difference between arrays divided by the number in the larger of the two arrays. This relationship was maintained when using much larger numerosities (Experiment 3). In Experiment 2, the chimpanzees were tested on the effects of total area and density by manipulating dot size and presentation area. The results revealed that these factors clearly affected the subjects’ performance but that they could not alone explain the results, suggesting that the chimpanzees did use relative numerosity difference as a discriminative cue.

We examined children’s ability to discriminate between different object materials—such as low vs. high gloss, glossy vs. painted, gold vs. yellow plastic, and glass vs. silver—using images created with physically based computer graphics. Participants included children aged 6 to 12, divided into two age groups (younger group: 6 to 9.5 years old; older group: 9.5 to 12 years old), as well as adults. They were asked to select the one image out of four that looked different from the others. The results showed that the ability to discriminate gloss intensity develops from early to late childhood, whereas the ability to distinguish between gloss and white paint continues to develop beyond childhood. Furthermore, the findings suggest that the ability to distinguish gold from yellow plastic and silver from glass is already well developed during childhood. These findings suggest that discrimination of material category and gloss intensity emerges relatively early in development, while integration of specular properties and underlying 3D structures develops more gradually and with substantial individual variation.

Surprisingly little is known about the eye movements of chimpanzees, despite the potential contribution of such knowledge to comparative cognition studies. Here, we present the first examination of eye tracking in chimpanzees. We recorded the eye movements of chimpanzees as they viewed naturalistic pictures containing a full-body image of a chimpanzee, a human or another mammal; results were compared with those from humans. We found a striking similarity in viewing patterns between the two species. Both chimpanzees and humans looked at the animal figures for longer than at the background and at the face region for longer than at other parts of the body. The face region was detected at first sight by both species when they were shown pictures of chimpanzees and of humans. However, the eye movements of chimpanzees also exhibited distinct differences from those of humans; the former shifted the fixation location more quickly and more broadly than the latter. In addition, the average duration of fixation on the face region was shorter in chimpanzees than in humans. Overall, our results clearly demonstrate the eye-movement strategies common to the two primate species and also suggest several notable differences manifested during the observation of pictures of scenes and body forms.