ArticleAnimal cognition2025
An eye-tracking study of visual attention in chimpanzees and bonobos when viewing different tool-using techniques.
Article in Animal cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Rank and payoff biases influence subject choices in a foraging task among sanctuary chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes).Animal cognition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Chimpanzees and bonobos are excellent tool users and can socially learn various skills. Previous studies on social learning mainly measure success/failure in acquiring new techniques, with less direct measurement of proximate mechanisms like visual attention during the process. This study investigates how great apes observe tool-using demonstrations through eye-tracking. After checking initial techniques, six chimpanzees and six bonobos were shown video demonstrations of human demonstrators using a tube to dip (low-efficiency) or suck (high-efficiency) juice, and then tried the task themselves. Attention to each video was compared to participants' knowledge. Although no individuals acquired the high-efficiency technique through video demonstrations, eye-tracking results revealed attentional differences between individuals familiar with different techniques. Compared with individuals already familiar with both techniques, individuals knowing only the dipping technique showed less attention to the unfamiliar sucking technique. This result indicates that apes may not attend much to what they do not know well, which aligns with reported interplay of action observation and understanding. Attentional patterns to the action part of the two techniques was non-significant between species, though bonobos looked marginally more at faces and chimpanzees looked significantly more at food. This study highlights the importance of conducting detailed investigations into social learning processes, with eye-tracking as one valuable method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.