Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26483529›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2015

Percussive tool use by Taï Western chimpanzees and Fazenda Boa Vista bearded capuchin monkeys: a comparison.

Elisabetta Visalberghi, Giulia Sirianni, Dorothy Fragaszy, Christophe Boesch

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Moving.American journal of primatology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. How bipedalism shapes humans' actions with hand tools.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Modeling a primate technological niche.Scientific reports · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Rhesus macaques use probabilities to predict future events.Evolution and human behavior : official journal of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society · 2019
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Technological Response of Wild Macaques (International journal of primatology · 2017
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Percussive technology in human evolution: an introduction to a comparative approach in fossil and living primates.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015
    Article
  19. Experimental studies illuminate the cultural transmission of percussive technologies in Homo and Pan.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015
    Review
  20. Primate archaeology reveals cultural transmission in wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus).Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Elisabetta VisalberghiIstituto di Scienze e Tecnologie della Cognizione, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 00197 Rome, Italy elisabetta.visalberghi@istc.cnr.it.
Giulia SirianniDepartment of Primatology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, 04103 Leipzig, Germany.
Dorothy FragaszyDepartment of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA.
Christophe BoeschDepartment of Primatology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, 04103 Leipzig, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Percussive tool use holds special interest for scientists concerned with human origins. We summarize the findings from two field sites, Taï and Fazenda Boa Vista, where percussive tool use by chimpanzees and bearded capuchins, respectively, has been extensively investigated. We describe the ecological settings in which nut-cracking occurs and focus on four aspects of nut-cracking that have important cognitive implications, namely selection of tools, tool transport, tool modification and modulation of actions to reach the goal of cracking the nut. We comment on similarities and differences in behaviour and consider whether the observed differences reflect ecological, morphological, social and/or cognitive factors. Both species are sensitive to physical properties of tools, adjust their selection of hammers conditionally to the resistance of the nuts and to transport distance, and modulate the energy of their strikes under some conditions. However, chimpanzees transport hammers more frequently and for longer distances, take into account a higher number of combinations of variables and occasionally intentionally modify tools. A parsimonious interpretation of our findings is that morphological, ecological and social factors account for the observed differences. Confirmation of plausible cognitive differences in nut-cracking requires data not yet available.

Indexed as

Tool Use BehaviorAnimalsBiological EvolutionBody SizeCebusEcosystemFeeding BehaviorHumansMotor SkillsNutsPan troglodytesSpecies Specificitykinematicspercussive tool usetool modificationtool selectiontool transport

Identifiers

PMID26483529
PMCPMC4614714

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.