Gestures of Human and Ape Infants Are More Similar Than You Might Expect

Thirteen years after the release of On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin published another report on the evolution of mankind. In the 1872 book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, the naturalist argued that people from different cultures exhibit any given emotion through the same facial expression. This hypothesis didn’t quite pan out—last year, researchers poked a hole in the idea by showing that the expression of emotions such as anger, happiness and fear wasn’t universal (PDF). Nonetheless, certain basic things—such as the urge to cry out in pain, an increase in blood pressure when feeling anger, even shrugging when we don’t understand something—cross cultures.

A new study, published today in the journal Frontiers in Psychology, compares such involuntary responses, but with an added twist: Some observable behaviors aren’t only universal to the human species, but to our closest relatives too—chimpanzees and bonobos.

Using video analysis, a team of UCLA researchers found that human, chimpanzee and bonobo babies make similar gestures when interacting with caregivers. Members of all three species reach with their arms and hands for objects or people, and point with their fingers or heads. They also raise their arms up, a motion indicating that they want to be picked up, in the same manner. Such gestures, which seemed to be innate in all three species, precede and eventually lead to the development of language in humans, the researchers say.

To pick up on these behaviors, the team studied three babies of differing species through videos taken over a number of months. The child stars of these videos included a chimpanzee named Panpanzee, a bonobo called Panbanisha and a human girl, identified as GN. The apes were raised together at the Georgia State University Language Research Center in Atlanta, where researchers study language and cognitive processes in chimps, monkeys and humans. There, Panpanzee and Panbanisha were taught to communicate with their human caregivers using gestures, noises and lexigrams, abstract symbols that represent words. The human child grew up in her family’s home, where her parents facilitated her learning.

Researchers filmed the child’s development for seven months, starting when she was 11 months old, while the apes were taped from 12 months of age to 26 months. In the early stages of the study, the observed gestures were of a communicative nature: all three infants engaged in the behavior with the intention of conveying how their emotions and needs. They made eye contact with their caregivers, added non-verbal vocalizations to their movements or exerted physical effort to elicit a response.

By the second half of the experiment, the production of communicative symbols—visual ones for the apes, vocal ones for the human—increased. As she grew older, the human child began using more spoken words, while the chimpanzee and bonobo learned and used more lexigrams. Eventually, the child began speaking to convey what she felt, rather than only gesturing. The apes, on the other hand, continued to rely on gestures. The study calls this divergence in behavior “the first indication of a distinctive human pathway to language.”

The researchers speculate that the matching behaviors can be traced to the last shared ancestor of humans, chimps and bobonos, who lived between four and seven million years ago. That ancestor probably exhibited the same early gestures, which all three species then inherited. When the species diverged, humans managed to build on this communicative capacity by eventually graduating to speech.

Hints of this can be seen in how the human child paired her gestures with non-speech vocalizations, the precursors to words, far more than the apes did. It’s this successful combinationof gestures and words that may have led to the birth of human language.

Clouds in the Head: New Model of Brain’s Thought Processes

A new model of the brain’s thought processes explains the apparently chaotic activity patterns of individual neurons. They do not correspond to a simple stimulus/response linkage, but arise from the networking of different neural circuits. Scientists funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) propose that the field of brain research should expand its focus.

Monkey Math: Baboons Show Brain’s Ability To Understand Numbers

Opposing thumbs, expressive faces, complex social systems: it’s hard to miss the similarities between apes and humans. Now a new study with a troop of zoo baboons and lots of peanuts shows that a less obvious trait—the ability to understand numbers—also is shared by man and his primate cousins.

“The human capacity for complex symbolic math is clearly unique to our species,” says co-author Jessica Cantlon, assistant professor of brain and cognitive sciences at the University of Rochester. “But where did this numeric prowess come from? In this study we’ve shown that non-human primates also possess basic quantitative abilities. In fact, non-human primates can be as accurate at discriminating between different quantities as a human child.”

“This tells us that non-human primates have in common with humans a fundamental ability to make approximate quantity judgments,” says Cantlon. “Humans build on this talent by learning number words and developing a linguistic system of numbers, but in the absence of language and counting, complex math abilities do still exist.”

Cantlon, her research assistant Allison Barnard, postdoctoral fellow Kelly Hughes, and other colleagues at the University of Rochester and the Seneca Park Zoo in Rochester, N.Y., reported their findings online May 2 in the open-access journal Frontiers in Psychology.

The study tracked eight olive baboons, ages 4 to 14, in 54 separate trials of guess-which-cup-has-the-most-treats. Researchers placed one to eight peanuts into each of two cups, varying the numbers in each container. The baboons received all the peanuts in the cup they chose, whether it was the cup with the most goodies or not. The baboons guessed the larger quantity roughly 75 percent of the time on easy pairs when the relative difference between the quantities was large, for example two versus seven. But when the ratios were more difficult to discriminate, say six versus seven, their accuracy fell to 55 percent.

That pattern, argue the authors, helps to resolve a standing question about how animals understand quantity. Scientists have speculated that animals may use two different systems for evaluating numbers: one based on keeping track of discrete objects—a skill known to be limited to about three items at a time—and a second approach based on comparing the approximate differences between counts.

The baboons’ choices, conclude the authors, clearly relied on this latter “more than” or “less than” cognitive approach, known as the analog system. The baboons were able to consistently discriminate pairs with numbers larger than three as long as the relative difference between the peanuts in each cup was large. Research has shown that children who have not yet learned to count also depend on such comparisons to discriminate between number groups, as do human adults when they are required to quickly estimate quantity.

Studies with other animals, including birds, lemurs, chimpanzees, and even fish, have also revealed a similar ability to estimate relative quantity, but scientists have been wary of the findings because much of this research is limited to animals trained extensively in experimental procedures. The concern is that the results could reflect more about the experimenters than about the innate ability of the animals.

“We want to make sure we are not creating a ‘Clever Hans effect,’” cautions Cantlon, referring to the horse whose alleged aptitude for math was shown to rest instead on the ability to read the unintentional body language of his human trainer. To rule out such influence, the study relied on zoo baboons with no prior exposure to experimental procedures. Additionally, a control condition tested for human bias by using two experimenters—each blind to the contents of the other cup—and found that the choice patterns remained unchanged.

A final experiment tested two baboons over 130 more trials. The monkeys showed little improvement in their choice rate, indicating that learning did not play a significant role in understanding quantity.

“What’s surprising is that without any prior training, these animals have the ability to solve numerical problems,” says Cantlon. The results indicate that baboons not only use comparisons to understand numbers, but that these abilities occur naturally and in the wild, the authors conclude.

Finding a functioning baboon troop for cognitive research was serendipitous, explains study co-author Jenna Bovee, the elephant handler at the Seneca Park Zoo who is also the primary keeper for the baboons. The African monkeys are hierarchical, with an alpha male at the top of the social ladder and lots of jockeying for status among the other members of the group. Many zoos have to separate baboons that don’t get along, leaving only a handful of zoos with functioning troops, Bovee explained.

Involvement in this study and ongoing research has been enriching for the 12-member troop, she said, noting that several baboons participate in research tasks about three days a week. “They enjoy it,” she says. “We never have to force them to participate. If they don’t want to do it that day, no big deal.

“It stimulates our animals in a new way that we hadn’t thought of before,” Bovee adds. “It kind of breaks up their routine during the day, gets them thinking. It gives them time by themselves to get the attention focused on them for once. And it reduces fighting among the troop. So it’s good for everybody.”

The zoo has actually adapted some of the research techniques, like a matching game with a touch-screen computer that dispenses treats, and taken it to the orangutans. “They’re using an iPad,” she says.

She also enjoys documenting the intelligence of her charges. “A lot of people don’t realize how smart these animals are. Baboons can show you that five is more than two. That’s as accurate as a typical three year old, so you have to give them that credit.”

Cantlon extends those insights to young children: “In the same way that we underestimate the cognitive abilities of non-human animals, we sometimes underestimate the cognitive abilities of preverbal children. There are quantitative abilities that exist in children prior to formal schooling or even being able to use language.”

A Chimp’s Point Of View: Goggles simultaneously monitor a chimpanzee’s eyes and field of view

Chimps with camera goggles on their heads are helping scientists learn how the apes literally see the world.

From a scientific perspective, the eyes are windows to the mind. What people watch is one key sign of what they might be thinking, so monitoring their gazes can help researchers learn about what is going on inside people’s heads.

Scientists have conducted eye-tracking studies on people for more than 100 years. However, comparably little work has been conducted with other primates. Such work promises to shed light on humanity’s closest living relatives, and how they might perceive the world differently.

"If we know the differences between chimpanzees and humans, we will have an insight into how human perception has evolved," said comparative psychologist Fumihiro Kano at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

Until recently, eye-tracking research involved desk-sized machines confined to labs. Investigators now have access to portable, wearable eye-trackers, enabling scientists to learn how people look at and interact with the world in a more natural way. This enables them to research topics such as how experts look at the world differently from novices. Now Kano and his colleagues are using these devices to study chimps.

"Everybody wants to see the world through chimpanzee eyes, right?" Kano said. "That’s one of my childhood dreams. How do chimpanzees, the closest relatives of humans, see the world?"

The researchers placed lightweight goggles on a 27-year-old female chimpanzee named Pan that had one camera monitor her right eye and another aimed at her field of view, both of which sent data to a portable recorder. The mobile setup allowed the chimp to move and behave freely.

"We modified the eye-tracker goggle shape so that the chimpanzee could wear it and like it," Kano said. "If the chimpanzee felt uncomfortable wearing the goggles, she wouldn’t care about throwing it away!"

When Pan wore the eye-trackers, the scientists practiced a two-minute gestural task with her that she had already learned for several years. The researchers performed one of three gestures — touching their noses, touching their palms, or clapping their hands — and gave Pan pieces of apple from a transparent box as a reward whenever she copied that task. The goggles also captured the greetings Pan often gave people before tasks, such as pant-grunting or swaying.

"No researcher has been successful in recording the natural gaze of chimpanzees before," Kano said.

The researchers found out how Pan looked at the world differently depending on what she was doing. For instance, when greeting experimenters, the chimpanzee focused on their faces and feet — the latter presumably to see where they were going — but during the gestural task, she gazed at the experimenters’ faces and hands. In addition, while Pan mostly ignored the fruit reward before the gestural task, she looked at it 30 times more during the task. Kano indicated that this focus on the fruit reveals that Pan was thinking ahead to anticipate the future.

"This work builds toward an understanding not just of how chimpanzees learn about the world, but how they want to influence it," said neuroethologist Stephen Shepherd at Rockefeller University in New York, who did not take part in this research. "We can use gaze as a readout of what chimpanzees think is important to attend and affect."

Moreover, past research with desk-mounted eye-trackers hinted chimps did not look at familiar faces any longer than unfamiliar ones, but these new findings suggest otherwise — Pan looked at unfamiliar experimenters longer than familiar ones.

The researchers think one reason for the difference may have been because the previous studies used pictures of faces, shown for a shorter amount of time. In the new experiment, Pan also looked at familiar people longer if they were not in rooms where she was accustomed to seeing them.

The researchers plan on testing more chimpanzees with these wearable eye-trackers. They also want to compare the apes with people and other primates.

"It will be very interesting to see how humans, chimpanzees and other primates use gaze while performing the same real-world tasks," Shepherd said. "I would love to know if chimpanzees are intermediate between humans and monkeys, or if they’re just like humans."

In addition, future research will analyze how chimpanzees predict the actions of people and other chimpanzees. How the apes predict the actions of others in real-time, “that is, within a fraction of a second, is largely unknown,” Kano said.

Kano and his colleague Masaki Tomonaga detailed their findings online March 27 in the journal PLOS ONE.

Rare primate’s vocal lip-smacks share features of human speech

The vocal lip-smacks that geladas use in friendly encounters have surprising similarities to human speech, according to a study reported in the Cell Press journal Current Biology on April 8th. The geladas, which live only in the remote mountains of Ethiopia, are the only nonhuman primate known to communicate with such a speech-like, undulating rhythm. Calls of other monkeys and apes are typically one or two syllables and lack those rapid fluctuations in pitch and volume.

This new evidence lends support to the idea that lip-smacking, a behavior that many primates show during amiable interactions, could have been an evolutionary step toward human speech.

"Our finding provides support for the lip-smacking origins of speech because it shows that this evolutionary pathway is at least plausible," said Thore Bergman of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. "It demonstrates that nonhuman primates can vocalize while lip-smacking to produce speech-like sounds."

Bergman first began to wonder about the geladas’ sounds when he began his fieldwork in 2006. “I would find myself frequently looking over my shoulder to see who was talking to me, but it was just the geladas,” he recalled. “It was unnerving to have primate vocalizations sound so much like human voices.”

That was something that he had never experienced in the company of other primates. Then Bergman came across a paper in Current Biology last year proposing vocalization while lip-smacking as a possible first step to human speech, and something clicked.

Bergman has now analyzed recordings of the geladas’ vocalizations, known as “wobbles,” to find a rhythm that closely matches human speech. In other words, because they vocalize while lip-smacking, the pattern of sound produced is structurally similar to human speech.

In both lip-smacking and speech, the rhythm corresponds to the opening and closing of parts of the mouth. What’s more, Bergman said, lip-smacking might serve the same purpose as language in many basic human interactions—think of how friends bond through small talk.

"Language is not just a great tool for exchanging information; it has a social function," Bergman said. "Many verbal exchanges appear to serve a function similar to lip-smacking."

Ability To ‘Think About Thinking’ Not Limited Only To Humans According to New Research

Humans’ closest animal relatives, chimpanzees, have the ability to “think about thinking” – what is called “metacognition,” according to new research by scientists at Georgia State University and the University at Buffalo.

Michael J. Beran and Bonnie M. Perdue of the Georgia State Language Research Center (LRC) and J. David Smith of the University at Buffalo conducted the research, published in the journal Psychological Science of the Association for Psychological Science.

“The demonstration of metacognition in nonhuman primates has important implications regarding the emergence of self-reflective mind during humans’ cognitive evolution,” the research team noted.

Metacognition is the ability to recognize one’s own cognitive states. For example, a game show contestant must make the decision to “phone a friend” or risk it all, dependent on how confident he or she is in knowing the answer.

“There has been an intense debate in the scientific literature in recent years over whether metacognition is unique to humans,” Beran said.

Chimpanzees at Georgia State’s LRC have been trained to use a language-like system of symbols to name things, giving researchers a unique way to query animals about their states of knowing or not knowing.

In the experiment, researchers tested the chimpanzees on a task that required them to use symbols to name what food was hidden in a location. If a piece of banana was hidden, the chimpanzees would report that fact and gain the food by touching the symbol for banana on their symbol keyboards.

But then, the researchers provided chimpanzees either with complete or incomplete information about the identity of the food rewards.

In some cases, the chimpanzees had already seen what item was available in the hidden location and could immediately name it by touching the correct symbol without going to look at the item in the hidden location to see what it was.

In other cases, the chimpanzees could not know what food item was in the hidden location, because either they had not seen any food yet on that trial, or because even if they had seen a food item, it may not have been the one moved to the hidden location.

In those cases, they should have first gone to look in the hidden location before trying to name any food.

In the end, chimpanzees named items immediately and directly when they knew what was there, but they sought out more information before naming when they did not already know.

The research team said, “This pattern of behavior reflects a controlled information-seeking capacity that serves to support intelligent responding, and it strongly suggests that our closest living relative has metacognitive abilities closely related to those of humans.”

Study shows humans and apes learn language differently

How do children learn language? Many linguists believe that the stages that a child goes through when learning language mirror the stages of language development in primate evolution. In a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Charles Yang of the University of Pennsylvania suggests that if this is true, then small children and non-human primates would use language the same way. He then uses statistical analysis to prove that this is not the case. The language of small children uses grammar, while language in non-human primates relies on imitation.

Yang examines two hypotheses about language development in children. One of these says that children learn how to put words together by imitating the word combinations of adults. The other states that children learn to combine words by following grammatical rules.

Linguists who support the idea that children are parroting refer to the fact that children appear to combine the same words in the same ways. For example, an English speaker can put either the determiner “a” or the determiner “the” in front of a singular noun. “A door” and “the door” are both grammatically correct, as are “a cat” and “the cat.” However, with most singular nouns, children tend to use either “a” or “the” but not both. This suggests that children are mimicking strings of words without understanding grammatical rules about how to combine the words.

Yang, however, points out that the lack of diversity in children’s word combinations could reflect the way that adults use language. Adults are more likely to use “a” with some words and “the” with others. “The bathroom” is more common than “a bathroom.” “A bath” is more common than “the bath.”

To test this conjecture, Yang analyzed language samples of young children who had just begun making two-word combinations. He calculated the number of different noun-determiner combinations someone would make if they were combining nouns and determiners independently, and found that the diversity of the children’s language matched this profile. He also found that the children’s word combinations were much more diverse than they would be if they were simply imitating word strings.

Yang also studied language diversity in Nim Chimpsky, a chimpanzee who knows American Sign Language. Nim’s word combinations are much less diverse than would be expected if he were combining words independently. This indicates that he is probably mimicking, rather than using grammar.

This difference in language use indicates that human children do not acquire language in the same way that non-human primates do. Young children learn rules of grammar very quickly, while a chimpanzee who has spent many years learning language continues to imitate rather than combine words based on grammatical rules.

Bulging Eyes Of The Tarsier Provide Insight Into Evolution Of Human Vision

A new study, led by Dartmouth College, suggests that primates developed highly accurate, three-color vision that allowed them to shift to daytime living after eons of wandering in the dark.

The findings, published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, challenge the prevailing theory that trichromatic color vision, a hallmark event in primate evolution, evolved only after primates became diurnal. Learning to rise with the sun was an evolutionary shift that gave rise to anthropoid (higher) primates, which led to the human lineage.

Dr. Amanda D. Melin, a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Anthropology at Dartmouth, led the team of scientists who based their findings on a genetic study of tarsiers, the enigmatic elfin primate that branched off early on from monkeys, apes and humans. These tiny animals, which measure between 3.3 and 6.5 inches in height, have a number of unusual traits – from communicating in pure ultrasound to their bulging eyes. Sensory specializations such as these have long fueled debate on the adaptive origins of anthropoid primates.

Previous research by this same team discovered the tarsiers’ ultrasound vocalizations last year. The new study sheds light on why the nocturnal animal’s ancestors had enhanced color vision better suited for daytime living conditions, like their anthropoid cousins.

The team analyzed the genes that encode photopigments in the eye. This analysis revealed that the last common ancestor of living tarsiers had highly acute, three-color vision much like modern monkeys and apes. Normally, such findings would indicate a daytime lifestyle. The tarsier fossil record, however, shows enlarged eyes that suggest they were active mainly at night.

Because of these contradictory lines of evidence, the researchers suggest that early tarsiers were instead adapted to dim light levels, like bright moonlight or twilight. Such conditions are dark enough to favor large eyes, but still bright enough to support trichromatic color vision.

Keen-sightedness such as this might have helped higher primates to carve out a fully daytime niche, the authors suggest, allowing them to better see prey, predators and fellow primates. They would also be able to expand their territory in a life no longer limited to the shadows.

Researchers discover the brain origins of variation in pathological anxiety

New findings from nonhuman primates suggest that an overactive core circuit in the brain, and its interaction with other specialized circuits, accounts for the variability in symptoms shown by patients with severe anxiety. In a brain-imaging study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), researchers from the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health describe work that for the first time provides an understanding of the root causes of clinical variability in anxiety disorders.

Using a well-established nonhuman primate model of childhood anxiety, the scientists identified a core circuit that is chronically over-active in all anxious individuals, regardless of their particular pattern of symptoms. They also identified a set of more specialized circuits that are over- or under-active in individuals prone to particular symptoms, such as chronically high levels of the stress-hormone cortisol.

“These findings provide important new insights into altered brain functioning that explains why people with anxiety have such different symptoms and clinical presentations, and it also gives us new ideas, based on an understanding of altered brain function, for helping people with different types of anxiety,’’ says Ned Kalin, senior author, chair of Psychiatry and director of the HealthEmotions Research Institute.

“There is a large need for new treatment strategies, because our current treatments don’t work well for many anxious adults and children who come to us for help.”

In the study, key anxiety-related symptoms were measured in 238 young rhesus monkeys using behavioral and hormonal measurement procedures similar to those routinely used to assess extreme shyness in children. Young monkeys are ideally suited for these studies because of their similarities in brain development and social behavior, Kalin notes. Variation in brain activity was quantified in the monkeys using positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, a method that is also used in humans.

Combining behavioral measures of shyness, physiological measures of the stress-hormone cortisol, and brain metabolic imaging, co-lead authors Alexander Shackman, Andrew Fox and their collaborators showed that a core neural system marked by elevated activity in the central nucleus of the amygdala was a consistent brain signature shared by young monkeys with chronically high levels of anxiety. This was true despite striking differences across monkeys in the predominance of particular anxiety-related symptoms.

The Wisconsin researchers also showed that young monkeys with particular anxiety profiles, such as high levels of shyness, showed changes in symptom-specific brain circuits. Finally, Shackman, Fox and colleagues uncovered evidence that the two kinds of brain circuits, one shared by all anxious individuals, the other specific to those with particular symptoms, work together to produce different presentations of pathological anxiety.

The new study builds upon earlier work by the Kalin laboratory demonstrating that activity in the amygdala is strongly shaped by early-life experiences, such as parenting and social interactions. They hypothesize that extreme anxiety stems from problems with the normal maturation of brain systems involved in emotional learning, which suggests that anxious children have difficulty learning to effectively regulate brain anxiety circuits. Taken together, this line of research sets the stage for improved strategies for preventing extreme childhood anxiety from blossoming into full-blown anxiety disorders.

“This means the amygdala is an extremely attractive target for new, broad-spectrum anxiety treatments,’’ says Shackman. “The central nucleus of the amygdala is a uniquely malleable substrate for anxiety, one that can help to trigger a wide range of symptoms.”

The work also suggests more specific brain targets for different symptom profiles. Such therapies could range from new, more selectively targeted medications to intensive therapies that seek to re-train the amygdala, ranging from conventional cognitive-behavioral therapies to training in mindfulness and other techniques, Shackman noted. To further understand the clinical significance of these observations, the laboratory is conducting a parallel study in young children suffering from anxiety disorders.