Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35190637›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Learning from communication versus observation in great apes.

Hanna Marno, Christoph J Völter, Brandon Tinklenberg, Dan Sperber, Josep Call

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Great ape interaction: Ladyginian but not Gricean.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  3. Review
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

5 authors.

Hanna MarnoDepartment of Cognitive Science, Central European University, Budapest, 1051, Hungary. hanna.marno@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-2509-267X
Christoph J VölterMesserli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, University of Vienna, 1210, Vienna, Austria.
Brandon TinklenbergDepartment of Philosophy, York University, Toronto, ON, M5R 2M8, Canada.
Dan SperberDepartment of Cognitive Science, Central European University, Budapest, 1051, Hungary.
Josep CallSchool of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, KY16 9JP, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When human infants are intentionally addressed by others, they tend to interpret the information communicated as being relevant to them and worth acquiring. For humans, this attribution of relevance leads to a preference to learn from communication, making it possible to accumulate knowledge over generations. Great apes are sensitive to communicative cues, but do these cues also activate an expectation of relevance? In an observational learning paradigm, we demonstrated to a sample of nonhuman great apes (bonobos, chimpanzees, orangutans; N = 24) how to operate on a food dispenser device. When apes had the opportunity to choose between an effective and an ineffective method in the baseline conditions, the majority of them chose the effective method. However, when the ineffective method was demonstrated in a communicative way, they failed to prioritize efficiency, even though they were equally attentive in both conditions. This suggests that the ostensive demonstration elicited an expectation of relevance that modified apes' interpretation of the situation, potentially leading to a preference to learn from communication, as human children do.

Indexed as

Animal CommunicationAnimalsBehavior, AnimalCuesHominidaeHumansKnowledgeLearningPan paniscusPan troglodytesPongo

Identifiers

PMID35190637
PMCPMC8861107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.