Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-20T16:43:28.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Motor planning in primates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2012

Daniel J. Weiss ,
Kate M. Chapman ,
Jason D. Wark  and
David A. Rosenbaum
Daniel J. Weiss
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology and Program in Linguistics, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802. djw21@psu.edu
Kate M. Chapman
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802. kmc385@psu.edu
Jason D. Wark
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106. jason.wark@case.edu
David A. Rosenbaum
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802. dar12@psu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Vaesen asks whether goal maintenance and planning ahead are critical for innovative tool use. We suggest that these aptitudes may have an evolutionary foundation in motor planning abilities that span all primate species. Anticipatory effects evidenced in the reaching behaviors of lemurs, tamarins, and rhesus monkeys similarly bear on the evolutionary origins of foresight as it pertains to tool use.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , August 2012 , pp. 244
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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

Chapman, K. M., Weiss, D. J. & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2010) Evolutionary roots of motor planning: The end-state comfort effect in lemurs (Lemur catta, Eulemur mongoz, Eulemur coronatus, Eulemur collaris, Hapalemur griseus, and Varecia rubra). Journal of Comparative Psychology 124:229–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Frey, S. H. (2004) The neural bases of complex tool use in humans. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8:71–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, E. L., Berthier, N. E., Metevier, C. M. & Novak, M. A. (2010) Evidence for motor planning in monkeys: Rhesus macaques select efficient grips when transporting spoons. Developmental Science 14:822–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, D. A. (2010) Human motor control, 2d ed. Academic Press/Elsevier.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, D. A., Cohen, R. G., Meulenbroek, R. G. & Vaughan, J. (2006) Plans for grasping objects. In: Motor control and learning over the lifespan, ed. Latash, M. & Lestienne, F., pp. 9–25. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, D. A., Marchak, F., Barnes, H. J., Vaughan, J., Slotta, J. & Jorgensen, M. (1990) Constraints for action selection: Overhand versus underhand grips. In: Attention and performance XIII: Motor representation and control, ed. Jeannerod, M., pp. 321–42. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Weiss, D. J. & Wark, J. (2009) Hysteresis effects in a motor task in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 35:427–33.Google Scholar
Weiss, D. J., Wark, J. D. & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2007) Monkey see, monkey plan, monkey do: The end-state comfort effect in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus). Psychological Science 18(12):1063–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed