Schmitt, Vanessa

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","316"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","3"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Journal of Comparative Psychology"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","325"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","123"],["dc.contributor.author","Schmitt, Vanessa"],["dc.contributor.author","Fischer, Julia"],["dc.date.accessioned","2017-09-07T11:47:11Z"],["dc.date.available","2017-09-07T11:47:11Z"],["dc.date.issued","2009"],["dc.description.abstract","Apes use inferential reasoning by exclusion to locate food both in the visual and auditory domain. To test whether olive baboons (Papio hamadryas anubis) show similar abilities as the apes object choice experiments with differing information about food located in 1 of 2 cups were conducted in the visual and auditory modality. Although all baboons (N = 7) were able to locate the reward when they had previously seen it, they failed to make use of auditory cues or arbitrary acoustic signals. When only partial information was given (i.e., only 1 cup was opened) 4 of the baboons were apparently able to infer the location of the reward by reasoning, whereas the other 3 may have adopted an alternative strategy (“avoid the empty cup”). In addition, 3 of the baboons were able to use arbitrary visual markers to locate the food reward. The results suggest that inferential reasoning is not restricted to apes but is shared with Old World monkeys. Furthermore, they also highlight some important differences in the processing of auditory versus visual information in operant conditioning settings."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1037/a0016218"],["dc.identifier.gro","3150640"],["dc.identifier.pmid","19685974"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/7420"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.status","final"],["dc.relation.issn","1939-2087"],["dc.title","Inferential reasoning and modality dependent discrimination learning in olive baboons (Papio hamadryas anubis)."],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","unknown"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","829"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","5"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Animal Cognition"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","838"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","16"],["dc.contributor.author","Schmitt, Vanessa"],["dc.contributor.author","Kröger, Iris"],["dc.contributor.author","Zinner, Dietmar"],["dc.contributor.author","Call, Josep"],["dc.contributor.author","Fischer, Julia"],["dc.date.accessioned","2017-09-07T11:47:15Z"],["dc.date.available","2017-09-07T11:47:15Z"],["dc.date.issued","2013"],["dc.description.abstract","Whether the cognitive competences of monkeys and apes are rather similar or whether the larger-brained apes outperform monkeys in cognitive experiments is a highly debated topic. Direct comparative analyses are therefore essential to examine similarities and differences among species. We here compared six primate species, including humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas (great apes), olive baboons, and long-tailed macaques (Old World monkeys) in a task on fine-grained size discrimination. Except for gorillas, subjects of all taxa (i.e. humans, apes, and monkeys) were able to discriminate three-dimensional cubes with a volume difference of only 10 % (i.e. cubes of 50 and 48 mm side length) and performed only slightly worse when the cubes were presented successively. The minimal size discriminated declined further with increasing time delay between presentations of the cubes, highlighting the difficulty to memorize exact size differences. The results suggest that differences in brain size, as a proxy for general cognitive abilities, did not account for variation in performance, but that differential socio-ecological pressures may better explain species differences. Our study highlights the fact that differences in cognitive abilities do not always map neatly onto phylogenetic relationships and that in a number of cognitive experiments monkeys do not fare significantly worse than apes, casting doubt on the assumption that larger brains per se confer an advantage in such kinds of tests."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1007/s10071-013-0616-0"],["dc.identifier.gro","3150664"],["dc.identifier.pmid","23443407"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/10326"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/7445"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","final"],["dc.relation.issn","1435-9448"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.title","Monkeys perform as well as apes and humans in a size discrimination task"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","unknown"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","417"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","2"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Animal Cognition"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","428"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","19"],["dc.contributor.author","Schmitt, Vanessa"],["dc.contributor.author","Federspiel, Ira"],["dc.contributor.author","Eckert, Johanna"],["dc.contributor.author","Keupp, Stefanie"],["dc.contributor.author","Tschernek, Laura"],["dc.contributor.author","Faraut, Lauriane"],["dc.contributor.author","Schuster, Richard"],["dc.contributor.author","Michels, Corinna"],["dc.contributor.author","Sennhenn-Reulen, Holger"],["dc.contributor.author","Bugnyar, Thomas"],["dc.contributor.author","Mussweiler, Thomas"],["dc.contributor.author","Fischer, Julia"],["dc.date.accessioned","2017-09-07T11:47:09Z"],["dc.date.available","2017-09-07T11:47:09Z"],["dc.date.issued","2016"],["dc.description.abstract","Social comparisons are a fundamental characteristic of human behaviour, yet relatively little is known about their evolutionary foundations. Adapting the co-acting paradigm from human research (Seta in J Pers Soc Psychol 42:281–291, 1982. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.42.2.281, we examined how the performance of a partner influenced subjects’ performance in long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis). Using parallel testing in touch screen setups in which subjects had to discriminate familiar and novel photographs of men and women, we investigated whether accuracy and reaction time were influenced by partner performance and relationship quality (affiliate vs. non-affiliate). Auditory feedback about the alleged performance of the co-actor was provided via playback; partner performance was either moderately or extremely better or worse than subject performance. We predicted that subjects would assimilate to moderately different comparison standards as well as to affiliates and contrast away from extreme standards and non-affiliates. Subjects instantly generalized to novel pictures. While accuracy was not affected by any of the factors, long reaction times occurred more frequently when subjects were tested with a non-affiliate who was performing worse, compared to one who was doing better than them (80 % quantile worse: 5.1, better: 4.3 s). For affiliate co-actors, there was no marked effect (worse: 4.4, better: 4.6 s). In a control condition with no auditory feedback, subjects performed somewhat better in the presence of affiliates (M = 77.8 % correct) compared to non-affiliates (M = 71.1 %), while reaction time was not affected. Apparently, subjects were sensitive to partner identity and performance, yet variation in motivation rather than assimilation and contrast effects may account for the observed effects."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1007/s10071-015-0943-4"],["dc.identifier.gro","3150634"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/7413"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.status","final"],["dc.relation.issn","1435-9448"],["dc.subject","Co-acting paradigm; Evolution; Inequity aversion; Meta-cognition; Monkeys; Non-human primates; Social comparison processes; Social relationships"],["dc.title","Do monkeys compare themselves to others?"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","unknown"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","no"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","143"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","2"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","157"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","13"],["dc.contributor.author","Schmitt, Vanessa"],["dc.contributor.author","Melchisedech, Sandra"],["dc.contributor.author","Hammerschmidt, Kurt"],["dc.contributor.author","Fischer, Julia"],["dc.date.accessioned","2017-09-07T11:47:41Z"],["dc.date.available","2017-09-07T11:47:41Z"],["dc.date.issued","2008"],["dc.description.abstract","Nearly 90% of humans are right-handed, raising the question of the evolutionary origins of this trait. While lateralisation of certain actions appears to be widespread in vertebrates, the question of whether nonhuman primates exhibit hand preferences at the population level is often contested. We observed Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus) living in the outdoor enclosure \"La Forêt des Singes\" at Rocamadour, France, while performing simple unimanual and coordinated bimanual tasks. For the unimanual task, we recorded continuously which hand they used reaching for grains. For the coordinated bimanual tasks, a semi-transparent box and a tube baited with peanut butter were presented to the macaques and the hand used to open the box or reach into the tube, respectively, was recorded. We found no significant hand preference in any of the tasks at the population level, but found individual hand preferences, the extent of which varied among individuals. For the unimanual, but not the bimanual task, we found that the handedness index increased with age. Our results add to the growing body of evidence that monkeys do not show hand preference at the population level."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1080/13576500701757532"],["dc.identifier.gro","3150691"],["dc.identifier.pmid","18302057"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/7476"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.status","final"],["dc.relation.issn","1357-650X"],["dc.title","Hand preferences in Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus)"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","unknown"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","no"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","257"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Nature Communications"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","5"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","2"],["dc.contributor.author","Schmitt, Vanessa"],["dc.contributor.author","Fischer, Julia"],["dc.date.accessioned","2017-09-07T11:47:42Z"],["dc.date.available","2017-09-07T11:47:42Z"],["dc.date.issued","2011"],["dc.description.abstract","A range of animal species possess an evolutionarily ancient system for representing number, which provides the foundation for simple arithmetical operations such as addition and numerical comparisons. Surprisingly, non-human primates tested in ecologically, highly valid quantity discrimination tasks using edible items often show a relatively low performance, suggesting that stimulus salience interferes with rational decision making. Here we show that quantity discrimination was indeed significantly enhanced when monkeys were tested with inedible items compared with food items (84 versus 69% correct). More importantly, when monkeys were tested with food, but rewarded with other food items, the accuracy was equally high (86%). The results indicate that the internal representation of the stimuli, not their physical quality, determined performance. Reward replacement apparently facilitated representation of the food items as signifiers for other foods, which in turn supported a higher acuity in decision making."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1038/ncomms1262"],["dc.identifier.gro","3150703"],["dc.identifier.pmid","21448156"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/7489"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.status","final"],["dc.relation.issn","2041-1723"],["dc.title","Representational format determines numerical competence in monkeys"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","unknown"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.contributor.author","Fischer, Julia"],["dc.contributor.author","Schmitt, Vanessa"],["dc.date.accessioned","2017-09-07T11:47:45Z"],["dc.date.available","2017-09-07T11:47:45Z"],["dc.date.issued","2011"],["dc.description.abstract","Here we describe the methods used for a two-choice quantity discrimination task, including different control conditions that test for changes in associative strength of the stimuli as well as potential experimenter bias. The experiments revealed that the choices of the monkeys were mainly driven by the fact whether or not they obtained the choice stimuli as food rewards. They did significantly better when tested with inedible items or when they were rewarded with other food for correct choices. Apparently, the monkeys failed at dual representation, i.e., the ability to hold two different mental representations of the same items in mind. The control conditions showed that the change in appearance of the stimuli did not explain the results; nor did they reveal a bias by the experimenter. In conclusion, testing quanity discrimination abilities of a species with food items may lead to an underestimation of their true competence."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1038/protex.2011.252"],["dc.identifier.gro","3150709"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/7495"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.status","final"],["dc.title","Quantity discrimination tests with macaques"],["dc.type","report"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","no"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","e32024"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","4"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","PLoS ONE"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","10"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","7"],["dc.contributor.author","Schmitt, Vanessa"],["dc.contributor.author","Pankau, Birte"],["dc.contributor.author","Fischer, Julia"],["dc.contributor.editor","Stanyon, Roscoe"],["dc.date.accessioned","2017-09-07T11:47:41Z"],["dc.date.available","2017-09-07T11:47:41Z"],["dc.date.issued","2012"],["dc.description.abstract","Understanding the evolution of intelligence rests on comparative analyses of brain sizes as well as the assessment of cognitive skills of different species in relation to potential selective pressures such as environmental conditions and social organization. Because of the strong interest in human cognition, much previous work has focused on the comparison of the cognitive skills of human toddlers to those of our closest living relatives, i.e. apes. Such analyses revealed that apes and children have relatively similar competencies in the physical domain, while human children excel in the socio-cognitive domain; in particular in terms of attention sharing, cooperation, and mental state attribution. To develop a full understanding of the evolutionary dynamics of primate intelligence, however, comparative data for monkeys are needed. We tested 18 Old World monkeys (long-tailed macaques and olive baboons) in the so-called Primate Cognition Test Battery (PCTB) (Herrmann et al. 2007, Science). Surprisingly, our tests revealed largely comparable results between Old World monkeys and the Great apes. Single comparisons showed that chimpanzees performed only better than the macaques in experiments on spatial understanding and tool use, but in none of the socio-cognitive tasks. These results question the clear-cut relationship between cognitive performance and brain size and--prima facie--support the view of an accelerated evolution of social intelligence in humans. One limitation, however, is that the initial experiments were devised to tap into human specific skills in the first place, thus potentially underestimating both true nonhuman primate competencies as well as species differences."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1371/journal.pone.0032024"],["dc.identifier.gro","3150683"],["dc.identifier.pmid","22485130"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/7863"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/7467"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","final"],["dc.relation.issn","1932-6203"],["dc.rights","CC BY 2.5"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5"],["dc.title","Old World Monkeys Compare to Apes in the Primate Cognition Test Battery"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","unknown"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","no"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","6"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Folia Primatologica"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","82"],["dc.contributor.author","Schmitt, V."],["dc.contributor.author","Fischer, Julia"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T09:00:15Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T09:00:15Z"],["dc.date.issued","2011"],["dc.identifier.isi","000304643100090"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/24106"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Karger"],["dc.publisher.place","Basel"],["dc.title","Representational Format Affects Numerical Competence in Monkeys"],["dc.type","conference_abstract"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","e91348"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","3"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","PLoS ONE"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","6"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","9"],["dc.contributor.author","Schmitt, Vanessa"],["dc.contributor.author","Schloegl, Christian"],["dc.contributor.author","Fischer, Julia"],["dc.date.accessioned","2017-09-07T11:47:40Z"],["dc.date.available","2017-09-07T11:47:40Z"],["dc.date.issued","2014"],["dc.description.abstract","Methodological variations in experimental conditions can strongly influence animals' performances in cognitive tests. Specifically, the procedure of the so-called object-choice task has been controversially discussed; here, a human experimenter indicates the location of hidden food by pointing or gazing at one of two or more containers. Whereas dogs usually succeed, results for nonhuman primates are ambiguous. In the standard version of the task the majority of subjects do not respond appropriately to human pointing. However, modifying the task setup, such as placing the containers further apart, seems to improve subjects' performances, suggesting that cue salience may be an important variable. Here we investigated whether the visibility of the experimenter inhibits long-tailed macaques' (Macaca fascicularis) usage of the pointing cue. In our baseline condition, with the experimenter fully visible, the monkeys chose the correct container in 61% of the trials. The performance increased significantly, however, when the experimenter was hidden behind a curtain and only the arm of the experimenter, a doll's arm, or a stick was visible. Furthermore, the monkeys performed significantly better when the tip of the pointing finger or device was close to the target compared to the more distant condition. Intriguingly, after these experiments the monkeys' performance was also significantly improved in the baseline condition (70%). Apparently, the monkeys were first distracted by the presence of the experimenter, but then learned to use the cue. These findings highlight the importance of the test conditions, and question some of the assumptions about species-specific differences in the object-choice task."],["dc.description.sponsorship","Open-Access-Publikationsfonds 2014"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1371/journal.pone.0091348"],["dc.identifier.gro","3150675"],["dc.identifier.pmid","24646501"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/10032"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/7458"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","final"],["dc.relation.issn","1932-6203"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0"],["dc.title","Seeing the Experimenter Influences the Response to Pointing Cues in Long-Tailed Macaques"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","no"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]