Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012;7(12):e52074.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052074. Epub 2012 Dec 26.

Sequential tool use in great apes

Affiliations

Sequential tool use in great apes

Gema Martin-Ordas et al. PLoS One. 2012.

Abstract

Sequential tool use is defined as using a tool to obtain another non-food object which subsequently itself will serve as a tool to act upon a further (sub)goal. Previous studies have shown that birds and great apes succeed in such tasks. However, the inclusion of a training phase for each of the sequential steps and the low cost associated with retrieving the longest tools limits the scope of the conclusions. The goal of the experiments presented here was, first to replicate a previous study on sequential tool use conducted on New Caledonian crows and, second, extend this work by increasing the cost of retrieving a tool in order to test tool selectivity of apes. In Experiment 1, we presented chimpanzees, orangutans and bonobos with an out-of-reach reward, two tools that were available but too short to reach the food and four out-of-reach tools differing in functionality. Similar to crows, apes spontaneously used up to 3 tools in sequence to get the reward and also showed a strong preference for the longest out-of reach tool independently of the distance of the food. In Experiment 2, we increased the cost of reaching for the longest out-of reach tool. Now apes used up to 5 tools in sequence to get the reward and became more selective in their choice of the longest tool as the costs of its retrieval increased. The findings of the studies presented here contribute to the growing body of comparative research on tool use.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Experimental set-up for Experiment 1 and Experiment 2.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mean % correct trials in the sequential and length-only trials (Experiment 1) [Error bars represent the standard error of mean].
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mean % of first out-of-reach tool used in the sequential and length-only control trials (Experiment 1) [Error bars represent the standard error of mean].
Figure 4
Figure 4. Illustration of the arrangement of the out-of-reach tools in Experiment 2 for the sequential trials (tools are shown in yellow).
Figure 5
Figure 5. Mean % correct trials in the sequential and length-only trials (Experiment 2) [Error bars represent the standard error of mean].
Figure 6
Figure 6. Mean % of first out-of-reach tool used in the sequential and length-only trials (Experiment 2) [Error bars represent the standard error of mean].

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Wimpenny JH, Weir AAS, Clayton L, Rutz C, Kacelnik A (2009) Cognitive Processes Associated with Sequential Tool Use in New Caledonian Crows. PLoS ONE 4: e6471 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006471. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Beck BB (1980) Animal tool behaviour: the use and manufacture of tools by animals. Garland STPM Publishing, New York, NY.
    1. Shumaker R, Walkup KR, Beck BB (2011) Animal tool behavior: the use and manufacture of tools by animals. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
    1. McGrew W (2010) Chimpanzee Technology Science, 328 (5978), 579–580 DOI: 10.1126/science.1187921. - PubMed
    1. Hunt GR, Gray RD (2002) Species-wide manufacture of stick-type tools by New Caledonian crows. Emu 102: 349–353.

Publication types

Grants and funding

Gema Martín-Ordas was supported by a post-doctoral fellowship of the “Programa de Ayuda a la Movilidad del Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion (Micinn)”, Spain. Also parts of the first author’s contributions were supported by the Danish National Research Foundation.The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.