Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T22:27:44.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

18 - Comparative Cognition Research in Zoos

from Part IV - Basic Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2018

By
Bonnie M. Perdue
Edited by
Allison B. Kaufman ,
Meredith J. Bashaw  and
Terry L. Maple
Allison B. Kaufman
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
Meredith J. Bashaw
Affiliation:
Franklin and Marshall College, Pennsylvania
Terry L. Maple
Affiliation:
Jacksonville Zoo and Gardens
Get access

Summary

Comparative cognition research is a rapidly growing and important area of inquiry. Recently, zoos have become a valuable source of data for researchers in this domain. Testing with animals at the zoo not only increases our knowledge of a wider variety of species, but also has the potential to serve as a valuable form of enrichment for the animals themselves. In this chapter, I will describe some ongoing comparative cognition work, including a project investigating sex differences in spatial cognition in giant pandas and otters, touchscreen computer testing in sun bears, and relative quantity judgments in elephants. I will also illustrate how comparative cognition research can help reach the public. Overall, comparative cognition is an incredibly broad and diverse field with great potential to develop in many settings, including zoos.
Type
Chapter
Information
Scientific Foundations of Zoos and Aquariums
Their Role in Conservation and Research
 , pp. 490 - 510
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, U. S., Stoinski, T. S., Bloomsmith, M. A., Marr, M. J., Smith, A. D., & Maple, T. L. (2005). Relative numerousness judgment and summation in young and old western lowland gorillas. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 119, 285–295.Google Scholar
Anderson, U. S., Stoinski, T. S., Bloomsmith, M. A., & Maple, T. L. (2007). Relative numerousness judgment and summation in young, middle-aged, and older adult orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus ablii and Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121, 1–11.Google Scholar
Bacon, E. S. (1980). Curiosity in the American black bear. Bears: Their Biology and Management, 4, 153–157.Google Scholar
Bacon, E. S. & Burghardt, G. M. (1976). Learning and color discrimination in the American black bear. Bears: Their Biology and Management, 1, 27–36.Google Scholar
Bacon, E. S. & Burghardt, G. M. (1983). Food preference testing of captive black bears. Bears: Their Biology and Management, 5, 102–105.Google Scholar
Baker, J. M., Shivik, J., & Jordan, K. E. (2011). Tracking of food quantity by coyotes (Canis latrans). Behavioral Processes, 88, 72–75.Google Scholar
Benson-Amram, S., Dantzer, B., Stricker, G., Swanson, E. M., & Holekamp, K. E. (2016). Brain size predicts problem-solving ability in mammalian carnivores. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(9), 2532–2537.Google Scholar
Benson-Amram, S., Heinen, V. K., Dryer, S. L., & Holekamp, K. E. (2011). Numerical assessment and individual call discrimination by wild spotted hyaenas, Crocuta crocuta. Animal Behavior, 82, 743–752.Google Scholar
Beran, M. J. (2001). Summation and numerousness judgments of sequentially presented sets of items by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115, 181–191.Google Scholar
Beran, M. J., Parrish, A. E., Perdue, B. M., & Washburn, D. A. (2014). Comparative cognition: past, present, and future. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 27(1), 3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bicca-Marques, J. L. C. S. (2005). The win-stay rule in foraging decisions by free-ranging titi monkeys (Callicebus cupreus cupreus) and tamarins (Saguinus imperator imperator and Saguinus fuscicollis weddelli). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 119(3), 343–351.Google Scholar
Bowler, M. T., Buchanan-Smith, H. M., & Whiten, A. (2012). Assessing public engagement with science in a university primate research centre in a national zoo. PLoS One, 7(4), e34505.Google Scholar
Boysen, S. T., Bernston, G. G., & Mukobi, K. L. (2001). Size matters: Impact of item size and quantity on array choice by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115, 106–110.Google Scholar
Call, J. (2000) Estimating and operating on discrete quantities in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 114, 136–147.Google Scholar
Carter, M., Webber, S., & Sherwen, S. (2015). Naturalism and ACI: Augmenting zoo enclosures with digital technology. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology (p. 61). New York: Assocation for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
Clay, A. W., Perdue, B. M., Gaalema, D. E., Dolins, F. L., & Bloomsmith, M. A. (2011). The use of technology to enhance zoological parks. Zoo Biology, 30(5), 487–497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drayton, L. A., Brosnan, S. F., Carrigan, J., & Stoinski, T. S. (2013). Endowment effects in gorillas (Gorilla gorilla). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 127(4), 365.Google Scholar
Dumont, B. & Petit, M. (1998). Spatial memory of sheep at pasture. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 60(1), 43–53.Google Scholar
Dungl, E., Schratter, D., & Huber, L. (2008). Discrimination of face-like patterns in the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 122(4), 335.Google Scholar
Evans, T. A., Beran, M. J., Harris, E. H., & Rice, D. (2009). Quantity judgments of sequentially presented food items by capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Animal Cognition, 12, 97–105.Google Scholar
Falk, J. H., Reinhard, E. M., Vernon, C. L., Bronnenkant, K., Deans, N. L., & Heimlich, J. E., (2007). Why Zoos and Aquariums Matter: Assessing the Impact of a Visit. Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos and Aquariums.Google Scholar
Gaulin, S. J. C. & Fitzgerald, R. W. (1986). Sex differences in spatial ability: An evolutionary hypothesis and test. American Naturalist, 127, 74–88.Google Scholar
Gaulin, S. J. C. & Fitzgerald, R. W. (1989). Sexual selection for spatial-learning ability. Animal Behavior, 37, 322–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazes, R. P., Diamond, R. F., Hope, J. M., Caillaud, D., Stoinski, T. S., & Hampton, R. R. (2017). Spatial representation of magnitude in gorillas and orangutans. Cognition, 168, 212–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldstein, E. (2011). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience (3rd edn.). Stamford, CT: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Gómez-Laplaza, L. M. & Gerlai, R. (2011). Can angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare) count? Discrimination between different shoal sizes follows Weber’s law. Animal Cognition, 14, 1–9.Google Scholar
Gray, J. A. & Buffery, A. W. (1971). Sex differences in emotional and cognitive behaviour in mammals including man: adaptive and neural bases. Acta Psychologica, 35, 89–111.Google Scholar
Heinzen, T. E., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Nolan, S. A. (2015). Clever Hans: What a horse can teach us about self deception. Skeptic (Altadena, CA), 20(1), 10–18.Google Scholar
Heras, M. & Ruiz-Mallén, I. (2017). Responsible research and innovation indicators for science education assessment: How to measure the impact? International Journal of Science Education, 39(18), 2482–2507.Google Scholar
Hopper, L. M. (2017). Cognitive research in zoos. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 16, 100–110.Google Scholar
Johnson-Ulrich, Z., Vonk, J., Humbyrd, M., Crowley, M., Wojtkowski, E., Yates, F., & Allard, S. (2016). Picture object recognition in an American black bear (Ursus americanus). Animal Cognition, 19, 1237–1242.Google Scholar
Jones, C. M., Braithwaite, V. A., & Healy, S. A. (2003). The evolution of sex differences in spatial ability. Behavioral Neuroscience, 117, 403–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelling, A. S., Snyder, R. J., Marr, M. J., Bloomsmith, M. A., Gardner, W., & Maple, T. L. (2006). Color vision in the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). Learning & Behavior, 34(2), 154–161.Google Scholar
Lipp, H., Pleskacheva, M. G., Gossweiler, H., Ricceri, L., Smirnova, A. A., Garin, N. N., … Dell’Omo, G. (2001). A large outdoor radial maze for comparative studies in birds and mammals. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 25, 83–99.Google Scholar
MacDonald, S. E. (1994). Gorilla’s (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) spatial memory in a foraging task. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108, 107–113.Google Scholar
MacDonald, S. E. & Agnes, M. M. (1999). Orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus abelii) spatial memory and behavior in a foraging task. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 113(2), 213–217.Google Scholar
MacDonald, S. E., Pang, J. C., & Gibeault, S. (1994). Marmoset (Callithrix jacchus jacchus) spatial memory in a foraging task: Win-stay versus win-shift strategies. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108(4), 328–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, S. E. & Ritvo, S. (2016). Comparative cognition outside the laboratory. Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews, 11, 49–61.Google Scholar
MacDonald, S. E. & Wilkie, D. M. (1990). Yellow-nosed monkeys’ (Cercopithecus ascanius whitesidei) spatial memory in a simulated foraging environment. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 104(4), 382–387.Google Scholar
Maple, T. (2016). Professor in the Zoo: Designing the Future for Wildlife in Human Care. Fernandina Beach, FL: Red Leaf Press.Google Scholar
Maple, T. L. & Perdue, B. M. (2013). Zoo Animal Welfare. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Miller, L. J. & Hill, H. M. (2014). Future directions in comparative psychology: An introduction to the special issue. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 27(1), 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olthof, A. & Roberts, W. A. (2000). Summation of symbols by pigeons (Columba livia): The important number and mass of reward items. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 114, 158–166.Google Scholar
Perdue, B. M. (2016). The effect of computerized testing on sun bear behavior and enrichment preferences. Behavioral Sciences, 6(4), 19.Google Scholar
Perdue, B. M., Beran, M. J., & Washburn, D. A. (2017). A computerized testing system for primates: Cognition, welfare and the Rumbaughx. Behavioural Processes, in press.Google Scholar
Perdue, B. M., Clay, A. W., Gaalema, D. E., Maple, T. L., & Stoinski, T. S. (2012). Technology at the zoo: The influence of a touchscreen computer on orangutans and zoo visitors. Zoo Biology, 31(1), 27–39.Google Scholar
Perdue, B. M., Snyder, R. J., Pratte, J., Marr, M. J., & Maple, T. L. (2009). Spatial memory recall in the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 123(3), 275–279.Google Scholar
Perdue, B. M., Snyder, R. J., Zhang, Z., Marr, M. J., & Maple, T. L. (2011). Sex differences in spatial ability: A test of the range size hypothesis in the order Carnivora. Biology Letters, 7(3), 380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perdue, B. M., Stoinski, T. S., & Maple, T. L. (2012). Using technology to educate zoo visitors about conservation. Visitor Studies, 15(1), 16–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perdue, B. M., Talbot, C. F., Stone, A. M., & Beran, M. J. (2012). Putting the elephant back in the herd: Elephant relative quantity judgments match those of other species. Animal Cognition, 15(5), 955–961.Google Scholar
Perusse, R. & Rumbaugh, D. M. (1990). Summation in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): Effects of amounts, number of wells, and finer ratios. International Journal of Primatology, 11, 425–437.Google Scholar
Pisa, P. E. & Agrillo, C. (2009). Quantity discrimination in felines: A preliminary investigation of the domestic cat (Felis silvestris catus). Journal of Ethology, 27, 289–293.Google Scholar
Ross, S. R. (2009). Sequential list-learning by an adolescent lowland gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) using an infrared touchframe apparatus. Interaction Studies, 10(2), 115–129.Google Scholar
Ross, S. R. & Gillespie, K. L. (2009). Influences on visitor behaviour at a modern immersive zoo exhibit. Zoo Biology, 28, 462–472.Google Scholar
Schaller, G. B., Jinchu, H., Wenshi, P., & Jing, Z. (1985). The Giant Pandas of Wolong. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Sherry, D. F. & Hampson, E. (1997). Evolution and the hormonal control of sexually-dimorphic spatial abilities in humans. Trends in Cognitive Science, 1, 50–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stoinski, T. S. & Whiten, A. (2003). Social learning by orangutans (Pongo abelii and Pongo pygmaeus) in a simulated food-processing task. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 117(3), 272.Google Scholar
Swaisgood, R. R., Lindburg, D. G., & Zhou, X. (1999). Giant pandas discriminate individual differences in conspecific scent. Animal Behavior, 57(5), 1045–1053.Google Scholar
Tanaka, M. (2016). Comparative cognition in zoo animals. Japanese Journal of Animal Psychology, 66(1), 53–57.Google Scholar
Tarou, L. R., Snyder, R. J., & Maple, T. L. (2004). Spatial memory in the giant panda. In Lindburg, D. & Baragona, K. (Eds.), Giant Pandas: Biology and Conservation (pp. 101–105). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Terrell, D. F. & Thomas, R. K. (1990). Number-related discrimination and summation by squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus sciureus and S. boliviensus boliviensus) on the basis of the number of sides of polygons. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 104, 238–247.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. & Chase, L. (1980). Relative numerousness judgments by squirrel monkeys. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 16, 79–82Google Scholar
Uller, C., Jaeger, R., Guidry, G., & Martin, C. (2003). Salamanders (Plethodon cinereus) go for more: Rudiments of number in an amphibian. Animal Cognition, 6, 105–112.Google Scholar
Vonk, J. (2016). Advances in animal cognition. Behavioral Sciences, 6(4), 27.Google Scholar
Vonk, J. & Beran, M. J. (2012). Bears “count” too: Quantity estimation and comparison in black bears, Ursus americanus. Animal Behaviour, 84(1), 231–238.Google Scholar
Vonk, J., Jett, S. E., & Mosteller, K. W. (2012). Concept formation in American black bears, Ursus americanus. Animal Behaviour, 84(4), 953–964.Google Scholar
Vonk, J. & Johnson-Ulrich, Z. (2014). Social and nonsocial category discriminations in a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and American black bears (Ursus americanus). Learning & Behavior, 42(3), 231.Google Scholar
Waller, B. M., Peirce, K., Mitchell, H., & Micheletta, J. (2012). Evidence of public engagement with science: Visitor learning at a zoo-housed primate research centre. PLoS One 7(9), e44680.Google Scholar
Watters, J. V. (2014). Searching for behavioral indicators of welfare in zoos: Uncovering anticipatory behavior. Zoo Biology, 33(4), 251–256.Google Scholar
Webber, S., Carter, M., Smith, W., & Vetere, F. (2017). Interactive technology and human–animal encounters at the zoo. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 98, 150–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehouse, J., Waller, B. M., Chanvin, M., Wallace, E. K., Schel, A. M., Peirce, K., … & Slocombe, K. (2014). Evaluation of public engagement activities to promote science in a zoo environment. PLoS One, 9(11), e113395.Google Scholar
Zamisch, V. & Vonk, J. (2012). Spatial memory in captive American black bears (Ursus americanus). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 126(4), 372–387.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×