Chimpanzee gestural exchanges share temporal structure with human language.

Humans regularly engage in efficient communicative conversations, which serve to socially align individuals1. In conversations, we take fast-paced turns using a human-universal structure of deploying and receiving signals which shows consistent timing across cultures2. We report here that chimpanzees also engage in rapid signal-to-signal turn-taking during face-to-face gestural exchanges with a similar average latency between turns to that of human conversation. This correspondence between human and chimpanzee face-to-face communication points to shared underlying rules in communication. These structures could be derived from shared ancestral mechanisms or convergent strategies that enhance coordinated interactions or manage competition for communicative 'space'.

Body part categorical matching in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes).

Humans categorize body parts, reflecting our knowledge about bodies, and this could be useful in higher-level activities involving bodies. We tested whether humans' closest living relatives-chimpanzees-have the same ability using touchscreen tasks, focusing on the major parts: heads, torsos, arms, and legs. Six chimpanzees were trained to perform a body part matching-to-sample task using sets of pictures of chimpanzee bodies, where in each trial, the sample and choice pictures were the same. Five passed the training and received the test sessions, where three trial types were mixed: trained same-individual picture pairs; novel same-individual picture pairs; and novel different-individual picture pairs. All participants performed better than the chance level in all conditions and for all body parts. Further analyses showed differences in performance when the samples were different body parts. For example, the results revealed better performances for heads and torsos than arms and legs in "novel different-individual pairs". The study showed that chimpanzees can visually match and categorize body parts in this experiment setting, even across different chimpanzees' bodies, suggesting potential biological understanding. Different performances for body parts suggested a deviated categorization from humans. We hope this study will inspire future research on the evolution of body perception.

Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) recognize that their guesses could be wrong and can pass a two-cup disjunctive syllogism task.

When chimpanzees search for hidden food, do they realize that their guesses may not be correct? We applied a post-decision wagering paradigm to a simple two-cup search task, varying whether we gave participants visual access to the baiting and then asking after they had chosen one of the cups whether they would prefer a smaller but certain reward instead of their original choice (experiment 1). Results showed that chimpanzees were more likely to accept the smaller reward in occluded than visible conditions. Experiment 2 found the same effect when we blocked visual access but manipulated the number of hiding locations for the food piece, showing that the effect is not owing to representation type. Experiments 3 and 4 showed that when given information about the contents of the unchosen cup, chimpanzees were able to flexibly update their choice behaviour accordingly. These results suggest that language is not a pre-requisite to solving the disjunctive syllogism and provides a valuable contribution to the debate on logical reasoning in non-human animals.

Comparative analysis of intragroup intermale relationships: a study of wild bonobos (Pan paniscus) in Wamba, Democratic Republic of Congo and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in Kalinzu Forest Reserve, Uganda.

Although chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and bonobos (Pan paniscus) share a multi-male/multi-female societal organization and form male-philopatric groups, disparities in terms of male aggression and stability of temporary parties are thought to exist among them. However, existing research in bonobos has mainly focused on the high social status, prolonged receptivity, and characteristic sexual behaviors of females, leaving the behaviors of males understudied. Moreover, prior comparative studies on Pan suffer from methodological inconsistencies. This study addresses these gaps by employing a uniform observation method to explore party attendance and aggressive interactions among male bonobos in Wamba and male chimpanzees in Kalinzu. Unlike male chimpanzees, which exhibit dispersion in the absence of receptive females in the group, male bonobos showed a lesser degree of such dispersion. Although the overall frequency of aggressive interactions per observation unit did not significantly differ between the two species, the nature of these interactions varied. Notably, severe aggressive behaviors such as physical confrontations among adult males were absent in bonobos, with most aggression occurring between the sons of the two highest-ranking females. Additionally, in bonobos, females actively engaged in polyadic aggressive behavior as aggressors, while all instances of coalitionary aggression in chimpanzees originated from male aggressors. These findings underscore the substantial impact of female behaviors on the observed distinctions in male aggressive interactions between the two species.

Animal behavior: A tale of two apes.

A new paper shows that rates of aggression are higher, and rates of coalition formation are lower, among male bonobos than among male chimpanzees. These findings are noteworthy because they challenge the view that female bonobos' preferences for less aggressive males favored a reduction in male aggression and an increase in social tolerance.

Functional fixedness in chimpanzees.

Differences in the tool use of non-human primates and humans are subject of ongoing debate. In humans, representations of object functions underpin efficient tool use. Yet, representations of object functions can lead to functional fixedness, which describes the fixation on a familiar tool function leading to less efficient problem solving when the problem requires using the tool for a new function. In the current study, we examined whether chimpanzees exhibit functional fixedness. After solving a problem with a tool, chimpanzees were less efficient in solving another problem which required using the same tool with a different function compared to a control group. This fixation effect was still apparent after a period of nine months and when chimpanzees had learned about the function of a tool by observation of a conspecific. These results suggest that functional fixedness in our closest living relatives likely exists and cast doubt on the notion that stable function representations are uniquely human.

The expression of empathy in human's closest relatives, bonobos and chimpanzees: current and future directions.

Empathy is a complex, multi-dimensional capacity that facilitates the sharing and understanding of others' emotions. As our closest living relatives, bonobos (Pan paniscus) and chimpanzees (P. troglodytes) provide an opportunity to explore the origins of hominin social cognition, including empathy. Despite certain assumptions that bonobos and chimpanzees may differ empathically, these species appear to overlap considerably in certain socio-emotional responses related to empathy. However, few studies have systematically tested for species variation in Pan empathic or socio-emotional tendencies. To address this, we synthesise the growing literature on Pan empathy to inform our understanding of the selection pressures that may underlie the evolution of hominin empathy, and its expression in our last common ancestor. As bonobos and chimpanzees show overlaps in their expression of complex socio-emotional phenomena such as empathy, we propose that group comparisons may be as or more meaningful than species comparisons when it comes to understanding the evolutionary pressures for such behaviour. Furthermore, key differences, such as how humans and Pan communicate, appear to distinguish how we experience empathy compared to our closest living relatives.

Differences in expression of male aggression between wild bonobos and chimpanzees.

Researchers investigating the evolution of human aggression look to our closest living relatives, bonobos (Pan paniscus) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), as valuable sources of comparative data.1,2 Males in the two species exhibit contrasting patterns: male chimpanzees sexually coerce females3,4,5,6,7,8 and sometimes kill conspecifics,9,10,11,12 whereas male bonobos exhibit less sexual coercion13,14 and no reported killing.13 Among the various attempts to explain these species differences, the self-domestication hypothesis proposes negative fitness consequences of male aggression in bonobos.2,15,16 Nonetheless, the extent to which these species differ in overall rates of aggression remains unclear due to insufficiently comparable observation methods.17,18,19,20,21,22,23 We used 14 community-years of focal follow data-the gold standard for observational studies24-to compare rates of male aggression in 3 bonobo communities at the Kokolopori Bonobo Reserve, Democratic Republic of Congo, and 2 chimpanzee communities at Gombe National Park, Tanzania. As expected, given that females commonly outrank males, we found that bonobos exhibited lower rates of male-female aggression and higher rates of female-male aggression than chimpanzees. Surprisingly, we found higher rates of male-male aggression among bonobos than chimpanzees even when limiting analyses to contact aggression. In both species, more aggressive males obtained higher mating success. Although our findings indicate that the frequency of male-male aggression does not parallel species difference in its intensity, they support the view that contrary to male chimpanzees, whose reproductive success depends on strong coalitions, male bonobos have more individualistic reproductive strategies.25.

Chimpanzees use social information to acquire a skill they fail to innovate.

Cumulative cultural evolution has been claimed to be a uniquely human phenomenon pivotal to the biological success of our species. One plausible condition for cumulative cultural evolution to emerge is individuals' ability to use social learning to acquire know-how that they cannot easily innovate by themselves. It has been suggested that chimpanzees may be capable of such know-how social learning, but this assertion remains largely untested. Here we show that chimpanzees use social learning to acquire a skill that they failed to independently innovate. By teaching chimpanzees how to solve a sequential task (one chimpanzee in each of the two tested groups, n = 66) and using network-based diffusion analysis, we found that 14 naive chimpanzees learned to operate a puzzle box that they failed to operate during the preceding three months of exposure to all necessary materials. In conjunction, we present evidence for the hypothesis that social learning in chimpanzees is necessary and sufficient to acquire a new, complex skill after the initial innovation.

Chimpanzees demonstrate a behavioural signature of human joint action.

The strength of human society can largely be attributed to the tendency to work together to achieve outcomes that are not possible alone. Effective social coordination benefits from mentally representing a partner's actions. Specifically, humans optimize social coordination by forming internal action models adapted to joint rather than individual task demands. To what extent do humans share the cognitive mechanisms that support optimal human coordination and collaboration with other species? An ecologically inspired joint handover-to-retrieve task was systematically manipulated across several experiments to assess whether joint action planning in chimpanzees reflects similar patterns to humans. Chimpanzees' chosen handover locations shifted towards the location of the experimenter's free or unobstructed hand, suggesting they represent the constraints of the joint task even though their individual half of the task was unobstructed. These findings indicate that chimpanzees and humans may share common cognitive mechanisms or predispositions that support joint action.

May the force be with you: exploring force discrimination in chimpanzees using the force-feedback device.

While force-feedback devices have been developed in areas such as virtual reality, there have been very few comparative cognitive studies in nonhuman animals using these devices. In addition, although cross-modal perception between vision and touch has been actively studied in nonhuman primates for several decades, there have been no studies of their active haptic perception. In this study, we attempted to train force discrimination in chimpanzees using a force-feedback device modified from a trackball. Chimpanzees were given different levels of force feedback (8.0 vs. 0.5 N) when moving the on-screen cursor to the target area by manipulating the trackball and were required to select one of two choice stimuli based on the force cue. The experiment was conducted using a trial-block procedure in which the same force stimulus was presented for a fixed number of trials, and the force stimulus was changed between blocks. The block size was progressively reduced from ten trials. Four chimpanzees were trained, but none reached the learning criterion (80% or more correct responses under the condition that the force stimuli were presented randomly). However, a detailed analysis of the chimpanzees' performance before and after the trial-block switching revealed that their choice behavior could not be explained by a simple win-stay/lose-shift strategy, suggesting that the switching of the force stimuli affected the chimpanzees' choice behavior. It was also found that the chimpanzees performed better when switching from small to large force stimuli than when switching from large to small force stimuli. Although none of the chimpanzees in this study acquired force discrimination, future studies using such force-feedback devices will provide new insights for understanding haptic cognition in nonhuman primates from a comparative cognitive perspective.

Chimps remember faces of old friends and family for decades.

Recognition ability rivals all other animals, including humans.

Cooperation across social borders in bonobos.

Cooperation beyond familial and group boundaries is core to the functioning of human societies, yet its evolution remains unclear. To address this, we examined grooming, coalition, and food-sharing patterns in bonobos (Pan paniscus), one of our closest living relatives whose rare out-group tolerance facilitates interaction opportunities between groups. We show that, as in humans, positive assortment supports bonobo cooperation across borders. Bonobo cooperative attitudes toward in-group members informed their cooperative relationships with out-groups, in particular, forming connections with out-group individuals who also exhibited high cooperation tendencies. Our findings show that cooperation between unrelated individuals across groups without immediate payoff is not exclusive to humans and suggest that such cooperation can emerge in the absence of social norms or strong cultural dispositions.

Humans recognize affective cues in primate vocalizations: acoustic and phylogenetic perspectives.

Humans are adept at extracting affective information from vocalizations of humans and other animals. However, the extent to which human recognition of vocal affective cues of other species is due to cross-taxa similarities in acoustic parameters or the phylogenetic closeness between species is currently unclear. To address this, we first analyzed acoustic variation in 96 affective vocalizations, taken from agonistic and affiliative contexts, of humans and three other primates-rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta), chimpanzees and bonobos (Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus). Acoustic analyses revealed that agonistic chimpanzee and bonobo vocalizations were similarly distant from agonistic human voices, but chimpanzee affiliative vocalizations were significantly closer to human affiliative vocalizations, than those of bonobos, indicating a potential derived vocal evolution in the bonobo lineage. Second, we asked 68 human participants to categorize and also discriminate vocalizations based on their presumed affective content. Results showed that participants reliably categorized human and chimpanzee vocalizations according to affective content, but not bonobo threat vocalizations nor any macaque vocalizations. Participants discriminated all species calls above chance level except for threat calls by bonobos and macaques. Our results highlight the importance of both phylogenetic and acoustic parameter level explanations in cross-species affective perception, drawing a more complex picture to the origin of vocal emotions.

Similarity and structured representation in human and nonhuman apes.

How we judge the similarity between objects in the world is connected ultimately to how we represent those objects. It has been argued extensively that object representations in humans are 'structured' in nature, meaning that both individual features and the relations between them can influence similarity. In contrast, popular models within comparative psychology assume that nonhuman species appreciate only surface-level, featural similarities. By applying psychological models of structural and featural similarity (from conjunctive feature models to Tversky's Contrast Model) to visual similarity judgements from adult humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas, we demonstrate a cross-species sensitivity to complex structural information, particularly for stimuli that combine colour and shape. These results shed new light on the representational complexity of nonhuman apes, and the fundamental limits of featural coding in explaining object representation and similarity, which emerge strikingly across both human and nonhuman species.

Don't look back on failure: spontaneous uncertainty monitoring in chimpanzees.

During computer-controlled cognitive tasks, chimpanzees often look up at the food dispenser, which activates at the same time as feedback for the correct choice but not for feedback for the incorrect choice. Do these "looking back" behaviors also indicate signs of spontaneous monitoring of their confidence in their choices? To address this question, we delayed the feedback for 1 s after their choice responses and observed their look-back behaviors during the delay period. Two chimpanzees looked up at the food dispenser significantly less frequently when their choice was incorrect (but the feedback was not given) than when it was correct. These look-back behaviors have not been explicitly trained under experimental contexts. Therefore, these results indicate that chimpanzees spontaneously change the frequency of their look-back behaviors in response to the correctness or incorrectness of their own choices, even without external feedback, suggesting that their look-back behaviors may reflect the level of "confidence" or "uncertainty" of their responses immediately before.

Chimpanzee and Human Risk Preferences Show Key Similarities.

Risk preference impacts how people make key life decisions related to health, wealth, and well-being. Systematic variations in risk-taking behavior can be the result of differences in fitness expectations, as predicted by life-history theory. Yet the evolutionary roots of human risk-taking behavior remain poorly understood. Here, we studied risk preferences of chimpanzees (86 Pan troglodytes; 47 females; age = 2-40 years) using a multimethod approach that combined observer ratings with behavioral choice experiments. We found that chimpanzees' willingness to take risks shared structural similarities with that of humans. First, chimpanzees' risk preference manifested as a traitlike preference that was consistent across domains and measurements. Second, chimpanzees were ambiguity averse. Third, males were more risk prone than females. Fourth, the appetite for risk showed an inverted-U-shaped relation to age and peaked in young adulthood. Our findings suggest that key dimensions of risk preference appear to emerge independently of the influence of human cultural evolution.

I'll (not) take that: The reverse-reward contingency task as a test of self-control and inhibition.

While searching for more evidence of quantitative skills in chimpanzees to add to what she already had found, Boysen discovered something else. When training chimpanzees to point at what they would not get, and not pointing at what they would get, none could do this for piles of food items. Even when those items in the pointed-at set were given away to another chimpanzee, and even with experience in the task, failure persisted. This test, the reverse-reward contingency test, has now been used with many species, as a means of assessing inhibitory control and perhaps self-control in animals. Typically, the task is difficult, and only specific manipulations have worked to allow primates to overcome the reversed contingencies. This includes using symbolic stimuli, adding another layer to the story, and more value to the task itself as a measure perhaps of forms of cognitive control in other species. I will discuss some of these empirical results, including from other chimpanzees who were given variations of the task, and how these studies have influenced numerous areas within comparative cognitive science.