Baboons Can Think Abstractly 10/23/01
LyndaNP
http://mentalhealth.about.com/library/sci/1001/blbaboon1001.htm
Baboons Can Think Abstractly
Two baboons successfully used analogous thinking to match symbol arrays
that were the "same but different"
WASHINGTON -- More non-human animals may be capable of abstract thought
than previously known, with profound implications for the evolution of
human intelligence and the stuff that separates homo sapiens from other
animals. A trans-Atlantic team of psychologists has found evidence of
abstract thought in baboons, significant because baboons are "old world
monkeys," part of a different primate "super family" that -- some 30
million years ago -- split from the family that gave rise to apes and
then humans. Chimpanzees, in the ape family, already have demonstrated
abstract thought. Now, two trained baboons successfully determined that
two differently detailed displays were fundamentally the same in their
overall design. Figuring this out required analogical (this is to this
as that is to that) reasoning, which many theorists view as the
foundation of human reasoning and intelligence.
The study is reported in the October issue of the Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, published by the
American Psychological Association (APA).
In a series of five experiments, Joel Fagot, Ph.D., of the Center for
Research in Cognitive Neuroscience in Marseille, France; Edward A.
Wasserman, Ph.D., of both the Center for Research in Cognitive
Neuroscience and the University of Iowa; and Michael E. Young, Ph.D., of
the University of Iowa trained two adult baboons, one male and one
female, to use a personal computer and joystick to look at and select
grids that had varying collections of little pictures.
In the foundation experiment, researchers familiarized the baboons with
a screen display of 16 different little pictures (four rows of four
across), such as the sun, an arrow, a light bulb, a train, and a house,
OR with a display of the same little picture repeated 16 times (for
example, all telephones). Researchers then presented the baboons with a
series of choices of two new displays. In each choice, one display was a
4x4 grid with 16 different icons (for example, a clock, a brain, a hand,
a triangle); the other was the 4x4 grid with 16 identical icons (for
example, all flowers). Researchers rewarded the baboons for selecting,
from two choices, the array that showed the same relationships among
pictures as the sample.
Researchers wanted to see whether the baboons could learn this
principle. Could the baboons perceive "sameness" even when its cues were
subtle and abstract?
The baboons did indeed learn to match the "different icons" test grids
to sample grids at a rate greater than chance. They also learned to
match "same icons" test grids to "same icons" sample grids at a rate
greater than chance. It took thousands of trials for them to learn the
"relation between relations" required by the task, but they did it. Say
the authors, "Although discriminating the relation between relations may
not be an intellectual forte of baboons, it is nevertheless within their
ken."
In the primary and subsequent four experiments, Fagot et al. also tested
two humans to assess baboon versus human performance. In experiments
2-5, the researchers shrunk the numbers of items in the grid to see
whether a lessening in variability (the "different" grids became closer
to the "same" grids, a lessening in entropy) affected the baboons'
choices. Both baboons and humans learned the basic task (although the
humans learned far faster), and transferred it to novel sample displays,
but humans were far more accurate at matching grids when the number of
icons was reduced.
The baboons and humans seemed to have different cutoff points for
discerning same vs. different, with humans being more sensitive to
entropy. The authors speculate that language may play a role, because
our verbal expression for "same" makes the idea of "same" more
restrictive -- in other words, things really have to be identical to
qualify. To baboons, the authors suggest, the concept of "same" might be
fuzzier and more inclusive.
The baboons' ability to abstract opens the door to other species'
cognitive potential. Fagot et al. state that additional research of
non-human animals is necessary before theorists attempt to limit the
capability for abstraction only to certain species. They state,
"Analogical thinking and its possible precursors may very well be found
in non-human animals -- if only we assiduously look for them."
Article: "Discriminating the Relation Between Relations: The Role of
Entropy in Abstract Conceptualization by Baboons (Papio papio) and
Humans (Homo sapiens)," Joel Fagot, Center for Research in Cognitive
Neurosciences of the National Center for Scientific Research in
Marseille, France; Edward A. Wasserman, Center for Research in Cognitive
Neurosciences (as above) and the University of Iowa, Iowa City; and
Michael E. Young, University of Iowa, Iowa City; Journal of Experimental
Psychology -- Animal Behavior Processes, Vol 27. No.4.
---American Psychological Association