tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/tool-use-10063/articlesTool use – The Conversation2023-02-11T04:48:26Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1994082023-02-11T04:48:26Z2023-02-11T04:48:26ZGoffin’s cockatoo named third species that carries toolsets around in preparation for future tasks<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/509364/original/file-20230210-18-6jwxa.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=36%2C36%2C6002%2C3974&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Thomas Suchanek</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>From pocket knives to smart phones, humans keep inventing ever-more-sophisticated tools. However, the notion that tool use is an exclusively human trait was shattered in the 1960s when <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14151401/">Jane Goodall observed</a> our closest living relatives, chimpanzees, retrieving termites from holes with stripped twigs. </p>
<p>Tool use among non-human animals is hotly debated. It’s <a href="https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/ask-neuroscientist-does-bigger-brain-make-you-smarter">often thought</a> a big brain is needed to understand the properties of objects, how to finely manipulate them, and how to teach this to other members of a species.</p>
<p>Until recently, humans and chimps stood out among tool-using species. They were considered the only species that used “toolsets”, wherein a collection of different tools is used to achieve a task. They were also thought to be the only animals that carried toolsets, in anticipation of needing them later. </p>
<p>A third species joined the exclusive club of toolset makers in 2021, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982221011118">when scientists</a> in Indonesia saw wild Goffin’s cockatoos using three distinct types of tools to extract seeds from fruit. And in research <a href="https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(23)00057-X">published this week</a>, researchers have shown Goffin’s cockatoos can also take the next leap of logic, by carrying a set of tools they’ll need for a future task.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/509360/original/file-20230210-26-3ycvxz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/509360/original/file-20230210-26-3ycvxz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/509360/original/file-20230210-26-3ycvxz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509360/original/file-20230210-26-3ycvxz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509360/original/file-20230210-26-3ycvxz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509360/original/file-20230210-26-3ycvxz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=642&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509360/original/file-20230210-26-3ycvxz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=642&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509360/original/file-20230210-26-3ycvxz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=642&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Goffin’s cockatoos are endemic to the Tanimbar Islands in Indonesia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Bright, enigmatic creatures</h2>
<p>Parrots have proven to be something of an enigma. They’re known to be highly intelligent creatures, yet they’ve rarely been observed using tools in the wild. </p>
<p>Curiously, the only parrot species known to use tools regularly in the wild is Australia’s own palm cockatoo, which uses them in a very unusual way. Males in northern Australia “manufacture” drumsticks and seedpod tools to use during their complex mating displays. <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1602399">They grasp</a> the drumstick or seedpod in the left foot and beat it against a hollow trunk in a rhythmic performance, with all the hallmarks of human instrumental music. </p>
<p>The 2021 study of wild Goffin’s cockatoos was particularly significant as it showed the birds’ tools were similar in complexity to those made by chimps, meaning their cognitive skills could be directly compared. </p>
<p>A small number of Goffin’s cockatoos were seen crafting a set of tools designed for three different purposes – wedging, cutting, and spooning – and using them sequentially to access seeds in fruits. This requires similar brain power to a chimp’s method of using multiple tools when fishing for termites.</p>
<h2>Anticipating problems</h2>
<p>An initial stumbling block in interpreting chimps’ use of toolsets was that nobody could show whether they visualised a collection of small tasks as one problem, or used single tools to solve separate problems. </p>
<p>Researchers finally solved this when <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4027411/">they observed</a> chimpanzees not only carrying their toolsets with them, but doing this flexibly and according to the exact problems they faced. They must have been thinking it through from start to finish!</p>
<p>This is precisely what Goffin’s cockatoos have now been shown to do (albeit in a captive setting). They’ve been confirmed as the third species that can not only use tools, but can carry toolsets in anticipation of needing them later on. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/509362/original/file-20230210-20-j5sm4w.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/509362/original/file-20230210-20-j5sm4w.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/509362/original/file-20230210-20-j5sm4w.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=233&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509362/original/file-20230210-20-j5sm4w.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=233&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509362/original/file-20230210-20-j5sm4w.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=233&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509362/original/file-20230210-20-j5sm4w.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509362/original/file-20230210-20-j5sm4w.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509362/original/file-20230210-20-j5sm4w.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This panel of photos shows Figaro the cockatoo flying with two tools towards a box with a cashew.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Thomas Suchanek</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Inspired by the toolsets chimpanzees use and transport in the wild for extracting termites from the ground, the authors of the study designed clever experiments to test Goffin’s cockatoos under similar circumstances. </p>
<p>The birds, initially ten in total, had to extract cashews from boxes that required either one or two tool types. They were tested in various ways to examine their flexibility and innovation, but the pièce de resistance came when reaching the box with the tools required additional movement, including climbing a ladder, and horizontal and vertical flight. </p>
<p>Though only five of the ten birds made it through the earlier experiments, four of those that did tended to transport both tools in one go, in anticipation of needing them to open the two-tool box. In other words, these birds could categorise both tools as a “toolset” and use it accordingly. Mission accomplished!</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NGzjaev2TLc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Nothing wrong with a bird brain</h2>
<p>But what about needing a big brain for complex tasks?</p>
<p>Like primates, some bird species have enlarged forebrains that provide them enhanced cognitive abilities including insight and innovation, understanding of others’ mental states, symbolic communication, episodic memory and future planning.</p>
<p>Parrots are especially well endowed with these abilities, so we shouldn’t be surprised they can use toolsets as easily as chimpanzees. Rather, what’s surprising is that more parrots haven’t been seen transporting toolsets for future use. </p>
<p>One has to conclude it’s because wild parrots are rarely presented with problems that require this. Parrots have powerful feet and beaks that allow them to reach the most difficult places and break the hardest fruits and seeds. Yet bright individuals in captivity can spontaneously invent new tools to solve new problems – so there’s no doubting how capable they are.</p>
<p>This new study is further proof parrots belong in the animal world’s exclusive version of Mensa. Between the considered planning shown by Goffin’s cockatoos, and the palm cockatoo’s ability to play instruments, it seems we’ve only scratched the surface of what these remarkable birds can achieve.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/polly-knows-probability-this-parrot-can-predict-the-chances-of-something-happening-132767">Polly knows probability: this parrot can predict the chances of something happening</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/199408/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rob Heinsohn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The only other species known to do this are humans and chimpanzees.Rob Heinsohn, Professor of Evolutionary and Conservation Biology, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1714642021-11-11T19:01:16Z2021-11-11T19:01:16ZTool use and language skills are linked in the brain – and practising one improves the other<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/431385/original/file-20211110-27-10eikb2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4288%2C2848&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/closeup-ct-scan-brain-skull-on-107572736">SvedOliver/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Language has traditionally been considered a complex skill which mobilises brain networks <a href="https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00006.2011">specifically dedicated</a> to linguistic processing. But in recent years, neuroscience research has returned to this idea and offered new insights.</p>
<p>Notably, studies have suggested that areas of the brain which control certain language functions, such as processing the meaning of words, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2811">are also involved</a> in the control of fine motor skills. </p>
<p>Syntax, the ability to correctly structure words into a sentence, is one of the most important features of language. While evidence had yet to link syntax skills specifically with motor control in the brain, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01639">research</a> published in 2019 revealed a correlation between having good syntactic ability and being skilled at using tools.</p>
<p>With this in mind, our international research team was interested to know whether the use of tools engages parts of the brain similar to those mobilised when we’re thinking about the construction of sentences. </p>
<p>We invited participants (244 across a series of experiments) to perform tests consisting of motor training and syntax exercises in French. Our <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.abe0874">new findings</a>, published in the journal Science, show that these two skills do engage the same region of the brain. We also found motor training with a tool improves our ability to understand the syntax of complex sentences, and vice versa.</p>
<p>For the motor training, we asked participants to use mechanical pliers to insert small pegs into different holes. In the syntax exercise, participants were shown sentences such as “The scientist who admires the poet writes an article” or similar sentences with more complex syntax like “The scientist whom the poet admires writes an article”. They then had to judge statements such as “The poet admires the scientist” as being true or false.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/our-ability-to-recognise-letters-could-be-hard-wired-into-our-brains-83991">Our ability to recognise letters could be hard-wired into our brains</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>For the first part of our analysis, we used brain imaging techniques (functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI) to identify the brain networks activated during each task.</p>
<p>We observed that the motor training and the syntactic exercises activated common areas of the brain in a region called the <a href="https://www.physio-pedia.com/Basal_Ganglia">basal ganglia</a>. The two tasks activated these common parts of the brain in similar ways (for example, we observed similar distribution of the activations). </p>
<h2>We wanted to know more</h2>
<p>Once we had ascertained that these two skills use the same brain resources, we wondered, is it possible to train in one to improve the other? Would motor training with the mechanical pliers improve comprehension of complex sentences? </p>
<p>So in the second part of our study, we invited a new sample of participants to complete a syntactic comprehension task before and after a 30-minute motor training with the pliers. </p>
<p>In the syntax task, we found that after motor training, participants performed better with sentences considered more difficult compared to before motor training.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A man uses pliers." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/431495/original/file-20211111-19-hskldr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/431495/original/file-20211111-19-hskldr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431495/original/file-20211111-19-hskldr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431495/original/file-20211111-19-hskldr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431495/original/file-20211111-19-hskldr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431495/original/file-20211111-19-hskldr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431495/original/file-20211111-19-hskldr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Parts of the brain which control certain language functions are also involved in the control of fine motor skills.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/detail-unrecognizable-person-using-pliers-while-2015902031">Daniskim/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To be confident this improvement wasn’t an effect of having completed the syntax activity earlier, we compared these results with three control groups – one which did not receive any motor training between the syntax activities (they were shown a wildlife video) and two groups which were given motor training tasks to complete with their bare hands. None of these groups showed a significant improvement in the language task.</p>
<p>We also had a group of participants complete the pliers exercise before and after a modified version the language exercise, to ascertain whether the reverse was true. We found practising complex syntactic skills improved motor performance with the tool, though training with simpler syntactic structures did not. </p>
<h2>Future applications</h2>
<p>Paleoneurobiology, the study of the brain’s evolution, has indicated that brain areas related to language increased in <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350777083_The_primitive_brain_of_early_Homo">our ancestors</a> during times of technological boom, when the use of tools became more widespread. </p>
<p>Taken together with modern neuroscience research, this link between language and tool use in the brain is not new. But as we continue to build our understanding in this space, we pave the way to harness this association for good. </p>
<p>We are now considering how we could apply our research findings clinically. For example, it might be possible to support the development of language skills in some patients with relatively well-preserved motor skills, such as young people with developmental language disorders. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-language-shapes-your-thoughts-what-researchers-know-96047">How language shapes your thoughts – what researchers know</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/171464/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Claudio Brozzoli receives funding from Angence Nationale pour la Recherche (ANR) and James S. McDonnell Foundation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon Thibault does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>We used brain imaging techniques to show these two activities engage the same region of the brain. Then we wanted to find out more.Claudio Brozzoli, Researcher at INSERM U1028 Centre de Recherche en Neuroscience de Lyon - Impact team, Karolinska InstitutetSimon Thibault, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1241452020-01-09T13:31:44Z2020-01-09T13:31:44ZMonkeys smashing nuts with stones hint at how human tool use evolved<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/308857/original/file-20200107-123403-11eithu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=347%2C155%2C3245%2C2502&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A capuchin monkey in Brazil hoists a stone tool to crack open nuts.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Luca Antonio Marino</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Human beings <a href="https://www.janegoodall.org.uk/chimpanzees/chimpanzee-central/15-chimpanzees/chimpanzee-central/19-toolmaking">used to be defined</a> as “the tool-maker” species. But the uniqueness of this description was challenged in the 1960s when Dr. Jane Goodall discovered that chimpanzees will pick and modify grass stems to use to collect termites. Her observations called into question <em>homo sapiens</em>‘ very place in the world.</p>
<p>Since then scientists’ knowledge of animal tool use has expanded exponentially. We now know that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20342">monkeys</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.07.057">crows</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2015.0861">parrots</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2019.08.003">pigs</a> and many other animals can use tools, and research on animal tool use changed our understanding of how animals think and learn.</p>
<p>Studying animal <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.asb.2018.01.001">tooling</a> – defined as the process of using an object to achieve a mechanical outcome on a target – can also provide clues to the mysteries of human evolution.</p>
<p>Our human ancestors’ shift to making and using tools is linked to evolutionary changes in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0414">hand anatomy</a>, a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-010-0257-6">transition to walking on two rather than four feet</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804042-3.00085-3">increased brain size</a>. But using found stones as pounding tools doesn’t require any of these advanced evolutionary traits; it likely came about before humans began to manufacture tools. By studying this percussive tool use in monkeys, researchers like my colleagues and I can infer how early human ancestors practiced the same skills before modern hands, posture and brains evolved.</p>
<h2>Monkeys using tools</h2>
<p>Understanding wild animals’ memory, thinking and problem-solving abilities is no easy task. In experimental research where animals are asked to perform a behavior or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.11.003">solve a problem</a>, there should be no distractions – like a predator popping up. But wild animals come and go as they please, over large spaces, and researchers cannot control what is happening around them.</p>
<p>However, some field sites provide a unique opportunity to test wild animals’ cognition. Fazenda Boa Vista in Piauí, Brazil is one of those sites. Here, wild bearded capuchin monkeys (<em>Sapajus libidinosus</em>) naturally use stones and anvils to crack open nuts.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/308434/original/file-20200103-11924-5thx25.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/308434/original/file-20200103-11924-5thx25.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/308434/original/file-20200103-11924-5thx25.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/308434/original/file-20200103-11924-5thx25.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/308434/original/file-20200103-11924-5thx25.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/308434/original/file-20200103-11924-5thx25.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/308434/original/file-20200103-11924-5thx25.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/308434/original/file-20200103-11924-5thx25.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Young capuchin monkey observes adult male monkey eating nuts cracked open using a stone tool.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Luca Antonio Marino</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Along with fruit, insects, fungi, and tubers, the Fazenda Boa Vista capuchin monkeys <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.03.002">opportunistically crack open nuts</a> as an additional food source. Although these monkeys only spend about <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.03.002">2% of their time using tools to access foods</a>, the nuts they eat are an important secondary food item that are available year-round. The challenge is that these nuts have tough shells that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20578">can’t be cracked open without a tool</a>. This population of monkeys has figured out how to crack nuts by placing them on a wood or stone anvil and then smashing them with rocks that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.02.010">weigh around 25-50% of their body weight</a>.</p>
<p>These bearded capuchin monkeys were the first South American primates that scientists ever observed using tools – only spotted in 2003. Since this discovery, researchers have been studying the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.04.018">decision-making</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056182">strategies</a> involved in capuchins’ stone tool use.</p>
<p>Because using stones to pound open food looks remarkably like what anthropologists imagine one of the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14464">earliest forms of human tool use</a> looked like, researchers study these monkeys as a way to understand our own evolutionary past. </p>
<h2>What happens with a new tool?</h2>
<p>My colleagues and I carried out an <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22958">experimental field study</a> that focused on understanding how these monkeys prepare to use their tools. Just as a person might move her hands around a box to decide how best to lift it, monkeys at this site feel their way through tool use.</p>
<p>First, we placed unfamiliar stones and palm nuts around naturally-occurring wood or stone anvils. Since the monkeys frequently use stones to crack open these tough nuts on the anvils, it was only a matter of time before they tried out the experimental stones.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tCzLWALwy8E?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Slow-motion video allowed for careful observation of how monkeys used new tools.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We filmed slow-motion videos of 12 monkeys cracking nuts to understand how monkeys adjust to using an unfamiliar tool. The idea, stemming from <a href="https://www.routledge.com/The-Ecological-Approach-to-Visual-Perception-Classic-Edition/Gibson/p/book/9781848725782">perception-action theory</a>, is that monkeys may obtain helpful information about the tool, like how heavy it is, and where they can hold it securely, by manipulating it before they use it. Like testing a hammer with a few light taps before you use it, this information may then help the monkeys to strike the nut forcefully and accurately.</p>
<p>Back in the U.S., we spent months carefully watching the slow-motion videos and recording the monkeys’ quick behaviors while using tools. The videos showed that for nut-cracking, monkeys grasp the sides of a stone, lift it to shoulder height, quickly move its hands to the top of the stone, then bring it down on the nut.</p>
<p>Given that the stones <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.11.004">can weigh about half as much as an adult female monkey</a>, this is an impressive feat. But it’s not always done perfectly. If the monkey’s grip isn’t right, she might lose control of the stone, and if the stone comes down at an angle the nut is likely to fly off the anvil. When this happens, the monkeys lose precious time and energy trying to achieve their goal. </p>
<p>What we found, though, is that the monkeys might avoid these imperfect outcomes by spinning, flipping and doing partial lifts with the stones to test different grips and find the one that’s most likely to be successful. The preparatory lifts didn’t necessarily help the monkeys crack open more nuts, but they might be linked to “tuning” muscular coordination as the monkeys prepare themselves for a heavy lift. Essentially, the preparatory lifts may help the monkeys get a sense of what they’ll need their muscles to do when it comes time to lift the stone and strike the nut in earnest.</p>
<p>This same sort of <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/haptic-perception">haptic perception</a> – the process of coming to understand an object by moving it around – plays a key role your own ability to use tools with dexterity. In human beings’ evolutionary past, increasingly refined haptic perception may have contributed to advancing tool use.</p>
<p>Studying how animals think about and use tool offers scientists like me an exciting glimpse into what human evolutionary history may have looked like, while also helping us to better understand animals in their own right.</p>
<p>[ <em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=youresmart">You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124145/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kristen S. Morrow does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Capuchin monkeys in Brazil use big stones to crush the shells of nuts they want to eat. An experiment in the field investigated how these monkeys prepare to use new, unfamiliar tools.Kristen S. Morrow, PhD Student in Anthropology and Integrative Conservation, University of GeorgiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/765312017-05-12T14:05:34Z2017-05-12T14:05:34ZWhat makes an animal clever? Research shows intelligence is not just about using tools<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168370/original/file-20170508-20729-ptmsps.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bonobo fishing for termites with a stick.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mike R/wikipedia</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Humans set themselves apart from other animals in a number of ways, including our ability to <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Man-Toolmaker-Publications-British-Museum/dp/0565005383">make tools</a>. When the anthropologist Jane Goodall discovered that wild chimpanzees frequently make and use tools, her advisor Louis Leakey <a href="http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140331-the-woman-who-redefined-mankind">famously quipped</a> that “now we must redefine tool, redefine man, or accept chimpanzees as humans”. </p>
<p>Numerous other species have joined chimpanzees in knocking humans off their pedestal. Boxer crabs use stinging anemones as defensive weapons. American alligators place sticks on top of their snouts to catch egrets during their nesting season, when sticks become a valuable resource. Parrots frequently use a variety of objects to scratch themselves. A jay and a crow have once been observed to use sticks as weapons to jab at each other. Elephant bulls sometimes throw young elephants at fences to create a passage.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10565301-animal-tool-behavior">The list goes on</a>, and continues to grow with new research. For example, we recently discovered that New Caledonian crows <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2099246-crows-are-first-animals-spotted-using-tools-to-carry-objects/">use tools to transport objects</a> and that greater vasa parrots <a href="http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/15/tool-using-parrots-use-pebbles-to-grind-seashells/">use pebbles to grind calcium powder</a> from seashells for ingestion. </p>
<p>Despite the large variation in which species use tools and how, this behaviour still has special significance. New reports of tool use in animals often feature words such as “intelligent”, “smart” or “clever”. But is this really the case or is it time to abandon tool use as a measure of intelligence? </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168369/original/file-20170508-20740-1ts1mcz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168369/original/file-20170508-20740-1ts1mcz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168369/original/file-20170508-20740-1ts1mcz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168369/original/file-20170508-20740-1ts1mcz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168369/original/file-20170508-20740-1ts1mcz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168369/original/file-20170508-20740-1ts1mcz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168369/original/file-20170508-20740-1ts1mcz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An octopus using a nut shell and clam shell as shelter.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nick Hobgood/wikipedia</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Termites build extraordinary structures that perfectly fit their needs. Their mounds have chambers that suit specific functions, connecting tunnels that allow large crowds to pass in both directions, and air flow that keeps the nest cool during the day and warm during the night. Designing such structures out of simple materials proves difficult even for human architects, yet it appears effortless for the tiny-brained termite. This is because building behaviour in termites is genetically encoded and often follows a fixed set of rules. </p>
<p>The same line of reasoning can apply to tool use. Simple rules and processes can lead to complex behaviours. Egyptian vultures can’t break ostrich eggs with their beaks, so they throw stones at the eggs to crack them. Young birds are not picky in what tools they use – <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1989.tb02737.x/full">they also try small stones, soft wood and even dung</a>. They quickly learn what works and what doesn’t, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that the animal understands the physical properties of objects simply because it can successfully use them as tools. </p>
<p>Humans don’t always reason about their tool use either. Or have you often thought about how a ballpoint pen actually works? </p>
<h2>Flexibility is key</h2>
<p>Finding a single measure of intelligence for species as different as fish and elephants is extremely <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-animals-as-smart-or-as-dumb-as-we-think-they-are-18986">difficult</a>. But one place to start is by looking at how flexibly animals can solve problems or, in other words, if they can learn more general rules and use these to solve new problems. For example, if an animal usually uses a stone to crack open a nut but there are no stones around, will they choose another heavy, hard object to crack open the nut? This would suggest a more abstract understanding about the type of object needed. </p>
<p>In the case of the Egyptian vulture and many other species, tool use occurs in one very specific context and is relatively inflexible. On the other hand, some species use a range of different tools to solve different problems. Chimpanzees, for example, have a <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0511879938">broad toolkit</a>: they use stones to crack nuts, leaf stems to fish for termites, stick tools to probe for honey and leaves to soak up water for drinking. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5Cp7_In7f88?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Chimpanzees’ sophisticated tool use.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Similarly, New Caledonian crows <a href="http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1630/20120422.short">make and use several different tools</a> from different materials to probe for insects, and also use tools <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-010-0366-1">to explore new and potentially threatening objects</a>. </p>
<p>This type of flexible tool use may allow individuals to innovate new and creative solutions to difficult problems. But even so, tool-using species aren’t necessarily better at solving problems than species that don’t use tools. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168372/original/file-20170508-5468-14j9g4c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168372/original/file-20170508-5468-14j9g4c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168372/original/file-20170508-5468-14j9g4c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168372/original/file-20170508-5468-14j9g4c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168372/original/file-20170508-5468-14j9g4c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=666&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168372/original/file-20170508-5468-14j9g4c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=666&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168372/original/file-20170508-5468-14j9g4c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=666&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Rooks are good problem solvers despite not normally using tools.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">John Haslam/wikipedia</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Not surprisingly, New Caledonian crows excel in experiments that require them to use tools. What is surprising, however, is the performance of their close relatives that are not natural tool users. For example, researchers have shown that rooks, which do not habitually use tools in the wild, <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/106/25/10370.short">can select tools of an appropriate size</a> and even bend a piece of wire into a hook to retrieve food in experiments when there’s a reward at stake – their problem-solving skills help them work out how to use tools. In the same way, tool-using <a href="http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1630/20120418.short">finches</a> and <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/xan/36/4/409/">apes</a> are not necessarily better at problem-solving tasks, whether they involve tools or not, than species of finches and apes which do not typically use tools in the wild.</p>
<p>In addition to using problem-solving tasks, scientists can also compare species by calculating <a href="https://theconversation.com/these-amazing-creative-animals-show-why-humans-are-the-most-innovative-species-of-all-75515">innovation rates</a>, or how often members of different species adapt to new challenges. For example, blue tits invented a creative way to get food by pecking open the caps of milk bottles left on porches – a behaviour which spread quickly across the population. </p>
<p>With continued research on animal behaviour, scientists are constantly forced to reconsider what makes humans unique. Animals continue to surprise us, leading one researcher to ask: <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30231743-are-we-smart-enough-to-know-how-smart-animals-are?">are we even smart enough to know how smart animals are?</a> </p>
<p>Humans are clearly not the only animals to use tools for a wide variety of purposes. And while tool use may not always reflect the spark of a bright mind, it still provides a fascinating glimpse into how different species interact with their environments. Case in point: wild chimpanzees use leafy sponges to obtain fermenting sap from palms. <a href="http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/2/6/150150.short">Tools to tipple</a> – another sign of intelligence?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76531/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ivo Jacobs has received funding from the Crafoord Foundation, Gyllenstiernska Krapperupsstiftelsen, and LMK-stiftelsen. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Megan Lambert has previously received funding from LMK-stiftelsen, the Experimental Psychology Society (EPS) and the University of York. </span></em></p>Species that use tools aren’t necessarily better at solving problems than species that don’t.Ivo Jacobs, Researcher in Cognitive Zoology, Lund UniversityMegan Lambert, Postdoctoral Fellow in Cognitive Zoology, Lund UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/772312017-05-08T15:27:44Z2017-05-08T15:27:44ZBrain-imaging modern people making Stone Age tools hints at evolution of human intelligence<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168412/original/file-20170508-20729-j1gfbg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C349%2C4330%2C3096&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The stone flakes are flying, but what brain regions are firing?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shelby S. Putt</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>How did humans get to be so smart, and when did this happen? To untangle this question, we need to know more about the intelligence of our human ancestors who lived 1.8 million years ago. It was at this point in time that a new type of stone tool hit the scene and the human brain nearly doubled in size. </p>
<p>Some researchers have suggested that this more advanced technology, coupled with a bigger brain, implies a higher degree of intelligence and perhaps even the first signs of language. But all that remains from these ancient humans are fossils and stone tools. Without access to a time machine, it’s difficult to know just what cognitive features these early humans possessed, or if they were capable of language. Difficult – but not impossible.</p>
<p>Now, thanks to cutting-edge brain imaging technology, my interdisciplinary research team is learning just how intelligent our early tool-making ancestors were. By scanning the brains of modern humans today as they make the same kinds of tools that our very distant ancestors did, we are <a href="http://nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0102">zeroing in on what kind of brainpower is necessary</a> to complete these tool-making tasks.</p>
<h2>A leap forward in stone tool technology</h2>
<p>The stone tools that have survived in the archaeological record can tell us something about the intelligence of the people who made them. Even our earliest human ancestors were no dummies; there is evidence for stone tools as early as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14464">3.3 million years ago</a>, though they were probably making tools from perishable items even earlier. </p>
<p>As early as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/385333a0">2.6 million years ago</a>, some small-bodied and small-brained human ancestors chipped small flakes off of larger stones to use their sharp cutting edges. These types of stone tools belong to what is known as the <a href="http://www.stoneageinstitute.org/pdfs/oldowan-ch1-schick-toth.pdf">Oldowan industry</a>, named after <a href="http://www.olduvai-gorge.org/aboutus.html">Olduvai Gorge</a> in Tanzania, where remains of some of the earliest humans and their stone implements have been found.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168149/original/file-20170505-19124-13y70ao.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168149/original/file-20170505-19124-13y70ao.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168149/original/file-20170505-19124-13y70ao.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168149/original/file-20170505-19124-13y70ao.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168149/original/file-20170505-19124-13y70ao.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168149/original/file-20170505-19124-13y70ao.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=666&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168149/original/file-20170505-19124-13y70ao.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=666&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168149/original/file-20170505-19124-13y70ao.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=666&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The more basic Oldowan chopper (left) and the more advanced Acheulian handaxe (right).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shelby S. Putt, courtesy of the Stone Age Institute</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Around 1.8 million years ago, also in East Africa, a new type of human emerged, one with a larger body, a larger brain and a new toolkit. This toolkit, called the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1221285110">Acheulian industry</a>, consisted of shaped core tools that were made by removing flakes from stones in a more systematic manner, leading to a flat handaxe with sharp edges all the way around the tool.</p>
<p>Why was this novel Acheulian technology so important for our ancestors? At a time <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1236828">when the environment and food resources were somewhat unpredictable</a>, early humans probably began to rely on technology more often to access food items that were more difficult to obtain than, say, low-hanging fruits. Meat, underground tubers, grubs and nuts may all have been on the menu. Those individuals with the better tools gained access to these energy-dense foods, and they and their offspring reaped the benefits. </p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0099">One group of researchers</a> has suggested that human language may have evolved by piggybacking on a preexisting brain network that was already being used for this kind of complex tool manufacture.</p>
<p>So were the Acheulian toolmakers smarter than any human relative that lived prior to 1.8 million years ago, and is this potentially the point in human evolution when language emerged? We used a neuroarchaeological approach to answer these questions.</p>
<h2>Imaging brain activity now to reconstruct brain activity in the past</h2>
<p>My research team, which consists of paleoanthropologists at the <a href="http://www.stoneageinstitute.org/staff.html">Stone Age Institute</a> and the <a href="https://clas.uiowa.edu/anthropology/people/robert-g-franciscus">University of Iowa</a> and <a href="https://www.uea.ac.uk/psychology/people/profile/s-wijeakumar">neuroscientists</a> at the <a href="https://www.uea.ac.uk/psychology/people/profile/j-spencer">University of East Anglia</a>, recruited modern human beings – all we have at our disposal these days – whose brains we could image while they made Oldowan and Acheulian stone tools. Our volunteers were recreating the behaviors of early humans to make the same types of tools they made so long ago; we can assume that the areas of their modern human brains that light up when making these tools are the same areas that were activated in the distant past.</p>
<p>We used a brain imaging technology called <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10538119/85/part/P1">functional near-infrared spectroscopy</a> (fNIRS). It is unique among brain imaging techniques because it allows the person whose brain is being imaged to sit up and move her arms, unlike other techniques that do not allow any movement at all.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168414/original/file-20170508-20740-iavw90.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168414/original/file-20170508-20740-iavw90.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168414/original/file-20170508-20740-iavw90.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168414/original/file-20170508-20740-iavw90.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168414/original/file-20170508-20740-iavw90.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168414/original/file-20170508-20740-iavw90.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168414/original/file-20170508-20740-iavw90.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168414/original/file-20170508-20740-iavw90.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Participants in the study made stone tools while their brain activity was measured with fNIRS.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shelby S. Putt</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Each of the subjects who participated in this study attended multiple training sessions to learn how to make Oldowan and Acheulian tools before going in for the final test – making tools while hooked up to the fNIRS system. </p>
<p>We needed to control for language in the design of our experiment to test the idea that language and tool-making share a common circuit in the brain. So we divided the participants into two groups: One learned to make stone tools via video with language instructions; the other group learned via the same videos, but with the audio muted, so without language.</p>
<p>If language and tool-making truly share a co-evolutionary relationship, then even those participants who were placed in the nonverbal group should still use language areas of the brain while making a stone tool. This is the result we should expect if language processing and stone tool production require the same neural circuitry in the brain. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7W_iR1T2r6I?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Training video shown to participants. The verbal group heard the instructor’s voiced instructions, while the nonverbal group watched a muted version.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>During the neuroimaging session, we had the participants complete three tasks: a motor baseline task during which they struck two round stones together without attempting to make flakes; an Oldowan task that involved making simple flakes without trying to shape the core; and an Acheulian task where they attempted to shape the core into a handaxe through a more advanced flake removal procedure.</p>
<h2>The evolution of human-like cognition</h2>
<p><a href="http://nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0102">What we found</a> was that only the participants who learned to make stone tools with language instruction used language processing areas of the brain. This probably means that they were recalling verbal instructions they’d heard during their training sessions. That explains why <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0001">earlier studies</a> that did not control for language instruction in their experiment design found that stone tool production activates language processing areas of the brain. Those language areas lit up not because of anything intrinsic to making stone tools, but because while participants worked on the tools they also were likely playing back in their minds the language-based instruction they’d received.</p>
<p>Our study showed that people could make stone tools without activating language-related brain circuits. That means, then, that we can’t confidently state at this point that stone tool manufacture played a major role in the evolution of language. When exactly language made its appearance is therefore still a mystery to be solved. </p>
<p>We also discovered that Oldowan tool-making mainly activates brain areas involved in visual inspection and hand movement. More advanced Acheulian tool-making recruits a higher-order cognitive network that spans across a large portion of the cerebral cortex. This Acheulian cognitive network is involved in higher-level motor planning and holding in mind multi-sensory information using <a href="https://www.simplypsychology.org/working%20memory.html">working memory</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168416/original/file-20170508-20761-1n0jopz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168416/original/file-20170508-20761-1n0jopz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168416/original/file-20170508-20761-1n0jopz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=194&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168416/original/file-20170508-20761-1n0jopz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=194&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168416/original/file-20170508-20761-1n0jopz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=194&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168416/original/file-20170508-20761-1n0jopz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=243&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168416/original/file-20170508-20761-1n0jopz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=243&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168416/original/file-20170508-20761-1n0jopz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=243&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Areas of the brain that form the Acheulian cognitive network that are also active when trained pianists play the piano.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shelby S. Putt</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It turns out that this Acheulian cognitive network is the same one that comes online <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.10.044">when a trained pianist plays the piano</a>. This does not necessarily mean that early humans could play Chopin. But our result may mean that the brain networks we rely on today to complete complex tasks involving multiple forms of information, such as playing a musical instrument, were likely evolving around 1.8 million years ago so that our ancestors could make relatively complex tools to exploit energy-dense foods.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77231/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Shelby Putt received funding from the Leakey Foundation, the Wenner-Gren Foundation, and Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society, and the American Association of University Women. </span></em></p>We can’t observe the brain activity of extinct human species. But we can observe modern brains doing the things that our distant ancestors did, looking for clues about how ancient brains worked.Shelby Putt, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, The Stone Age Institute and The Center for Research into the Anthropological Foundations of Technology, Indiana UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/743792017-04-03T14:11:22Z2017-04-03T14:11:22ZChimpanzees hunting for honey are cleverer than we thought<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163428/original/image-20170331-16266-1gmqa09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Chimpanzees performed a specific technique with a stick to extract underground bees nests.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Chimpanzees are the closest <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives">living relatives</a> to humans. Because of this they can offer invaluable insights into understanding the evolutionary roots of how humans developed their cognitive and technological abilities. </p>
<p>Years of data taken from studies conducted on wild apes suggests that chimpanzees could have something similar to what we call <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6737/abs/399682a0.html">“culture”</a> in humans. Biologists define “culture” as a set of behaviours – such as dietary habits, technical solutions, and communication systems – that individuals of one group share and that are distinguishable between groups. These behaviours are passed on from one individual to another not genetically, but socially by, for example, observing other individuals. These findings have led to a lively <a href="http://synergy.st-andrews.ac.uk/lalandlab/files/2015/08/laland_TREE_2006.pdf">debate about “culture”</a> in animals. </p>
<p>One way of understanding the evolution of “culture” among animals is by <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.21036/LTPUB10348">documenting and analysing</a> the behaviour of wild chimpanzees. </p>
<p>We have completed a <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/btp.12354/abstract">study</a> that adds to this body of knowledge. We used camera traps (a non-invasive approach) to monitor the behaviour of members of a community of chimpanzees in the forests of Loango National Park in Gabon. What we caught on camera was that they performed a specific technique to extract underground bee nests. </p>
<p>We were able to directly observe how chimpanzees access a high quality food resource that would otherwise be inaccessible. Our research confirmed <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2009.04.001">earlier observations</a> that chimpanzees use wooden tools to dig out the bee nests and access the honey. This allowed them to achieve similar levels of success as other, more skilled, diggers such as honey badgers and forest elephants, with whom they compete for honey. </p>
<p>Our study adds new knowledge to understanding the behavioural ecology of three species that inhabit a wide range of habitats across Africa. </p>
<h2>What the cameras captured</h2>
<p>Loango National Park provides an exceptional location to study chimpanzees. The park is made up of a unique combination of coastal forest, mangroves, savannas patches, rain-forest and swamps. The local fauna reflects the richness of the habitat, and includes buffaloes, forest elephants, red river hogs, monkeys, duikers and hippos.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.eva.mpg.de/primat/research-groups/chimpanzees/field-sites/loango-chimpanzee-project.html?Fsize=0%2C%20%40">Loango Ape project</a> was initiated in 2005 to investigate various aspects of the behavioural ecology of central African chimpanzees and western lowland gorillas. Both species inhabit the same area at this unique field site. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163463/original/image-20170331-31750-pxm2nj.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163463/original/image-20170331-31750-pxm2nj.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163463/original/image-20170331-31750-pxm2nj.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163463/original/image-20170331-31750-pxm2nj.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163463/original/image-20170331-31750-pxm2nj.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163463/original/image-20170331-31750-pxm2nj.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163463/original/image-20170331-31750-pxm2nj.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163463/original/image-20170331-31750-pxm2nj.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The chimpanzees were as successful at extracting the honey as the honey badgers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">MPI EVA / Loango Chimpanzee Project- Anne-Céline Granjon</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Before the cameras were set up, researchers started by looking for signs of apes. They soon came across wooden sticks next to holes dug into the ground, often associated with honeycombs. To expert eyes the sticks suggested that they were being used to extract honey, possibly by chimpanzees. </p>
<p>Honey is an extremely valuable food source for animals because it has a high concentration of sugar and other natural elements. </p>
<p>Thanks to the non-invasive approach we used, it soon became clear that chimpanzees were not the only consumers of the honey from the underground bee nests. It turned out that they had to compete for this resource with honey badgers and, surprisingly, forest elephants.</p>
<h2>Competition for the honey</h2>
<p><a href="http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S0266467412000612">Previous studies</a> carried out at the same site showed that chimpanzees could be excluded from certain feeding areas because of competition with other species, particularly elephants. This prompted us to take a closer look at the interactions among the apes and the other consumers of the underground bee nests.</p>
<p>We found that chimpanzees weren’t affected by the previous visits of elephants, but that they refrained from digging after honey badger visited a bee nest. <a href="http://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/29895">Honey badgers</a> are known to be fierce fighters, which could explain the chimpanzees behaviour. In fact, this strategy could help chimpanzees to prevent risky encounters with this competitor.</p>
<p>Another challenge for the apes is that the honey is buried deep in the ground – some nests were a meter underground, giving honey badgers and elephants an advantage. Honey badgers are well adapted to digging while elephants are physically strong. Despite this, the chimpanzees we watched were as successful at extracting the honey as the honey badgers, likely thanks to the tools they used which improved their ability to dig. </p>
<p>The use of tools therefore helped chimpanzees access a high quality food resource they would otherwise have found inaccessible.</p>
<p>Overall, our study provided new, fascinating observations about the behaviour of wild chimpanzees. We showed that chimpanzees can apply a complex technique using tools to access a hidden resource. We also showed that they changed their behaviour to avoid risks, such as encountering potentially dangerous competitors. </p>
<p>These results provide more evidence about the range of technological and behavioural strategies that chimpanzees are able to perform in their natural environment.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74379/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Vittoria Estienne works for the Department of Primatology at the Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig (Germany). She receives funding from the Max Planck Society. The Loango Ape Project is run by Tobias Deschner (Loango Chimpanzee Project) and Martha Robbins (Loango Gorilla Project) and supported in Gabon by the Agence Nationale des Parcs Nationaux (ANPN), by the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique et Technique of Gabon (CENAREST), and by the staff of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). Data collection was possible thanks to the help of C. Orbell, Y. Nkoma, U. Bora Moussouami, L. Rabanal, and all other field assistants of the Loango Ape project. </span></em></p>New, fascinating observations about the behaviour of wild chimpanzees showed that they can apply a complex technique to access honey.Vittoria Estienne, Doctoral student Department of Primatology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary AnthropologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/514752016-03-01T04:23:19Z2016-03-01T04:23:19ZBird-brained and brilliant: Australia’s avians are smarter than you think<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104986/original/image-20151209-3266-k9t5go.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Spangled Drongo is a frequent mimic</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/kookr/7892475898/in/photolist-d2r17E-GrjY6-gEwWiN-gxarU-i1hry-xwQhKo-8yeLuc-za9k3M-gxajb-cbDW7A-9ieHQ-dqrD9W-Heo64-dDKWSh-oVvK62-z1raVH-g3ioUz-3miMYt-pw568U-pNtjMv-qR4dMg-pvYJtg-bDEakW-bzzXqP-mXBYz-z3D95E-2jNdbg-omFXT5-dZttEg-oqtNkK-4Z9Gus-nAS2b-psjZTQ-pGCV7m-pJJf6a-oMVTFr-5C63aZ-7fvE3U-suhypy-hzEi2-6veAuf-7KvmZK-xyeiSh-x292T7-x3M6SR-x292BL-xhXVo1-xju8Xo-x3EroE-4P4U1d">David Cook/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Calling someone a “bird brain” is not usually meant as a compliment. But as research continues to reveal, birds are much smarter than was once thought. </p>
<p>Australian birds are arguably among the smartest in the world. Some display complex behaviours such as problem solving, learning and tool use comparable to behaviours observed in great apes. </p>
<p>I’ve summarised what we know about Australia’s exceptional birds in my book <a href="http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/7130.htm">Bird Minds</a>, showing how versatile and complex our native birds really are. </p>
<h2>The smarts of singing</h2>
<p>It all starts with the brain. We once believed that small brains equal little thinking, but we now know that this is not true. Just as the smallest computer chips can fit an enormous amount of memory, bird brains can too. This is precisely what was discovered in songbirds by first studying the song control system in the native Australian Zebra Finch. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC53130/">Research</a> showed that their tiny brains have a complex network of neurons dedicated to learning song and storing it in memory. And such learning is aided by mirror neurons (brain cells), as in humans, capable of committing heard sounds to memory. These <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7176/abs/nature06492.html">special neurons</a> are active in the listening bird as if it were singing itself. </p>
<p>When the bird sings that song again it can then be checked against the stored memory. This is a brilliant biological solution to achieve learning, as has also been found in humans. </p>
<p>Many Australian birds are <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-mimics-among-us-birds-pirate-songs-for-personal-profit-30195">brilliant mimics</a>. Mimicry was once dismissed as “mindless”. In fact, it’s the first stage of learning. </p>
<p>Human babies and infants do it all the time, gradually linking the mimicked sounds with words and meaning. Eventually they are able to apply specific sounds in a correct context. That is <a href="http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(10)01451-X?mobileUi=0">not mindless</a>. </p>
<p>For instance, my galah learned to call the dogs by their names and would wait until they came running to him!</p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/3880.htm">magpie</a> used dog calling in another way. A cat wanted the magpie gone, then the magpie called the dog’s name. The dog came running and chased the cat away. The magpie stayed.</p>
<p>Many Australian species mimic in the wild. <a href="http://escholarship.org/uc/item/356357r0">Lyrebirds and magpies</a> have the most varied forms of mimicry, followed by parrots and parakeets, Satin Bowerbirds, Spangled Drongos and many others. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104615/original/image-20151207-22680-1pqf0n2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104615/original/image-20151207-22680-1pqf0n2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104615/original/image-20151207-22680-1pqf0n2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104615/original/image-20151207-22680-1pqf0n2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104615/original/image-20151207-22680-1pqf0n2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104615/original/image-20151207-22680-1pqf0n2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104615/original/image-20151207-22680-1pqf0n2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The lyrebird is renowned for its talent of mimicry.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/kookr/5875835739/in/photolist-9XecfK-6Jrieh-9XWeFT-4Luxcq-kJ9hr2-4QgD3y-pxMb8f-aAUe75-5U49NA-bs1FqJ-6n37KB-bEVyX8-73V3Kt-noQSLh-6n386r-fLBgHj-6y8Ljq-76Y8Bc-eeEMji-bQ8ezX-diY9FV-xj7UV-eeELRt-aAUfMy-5jtmHq-4Qgxiy-eHMG2u-7YKNeD-nEU6yd-azSEXh-fM8bH-5Ftocb-bzL2BP-8hBYDS-pWt8hQ-8hyJRe-5AsSK7-xj7ZM-76Y8jZ-xj7QM-83vxs3-83srd4-83sr3k-8hyJGk-bZrCPG-83vwVf-83sqCn-83vwoq-83sq8R-A4Vdvb">David Cook/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Food for thought</h2>
<p>It is perhaps the fickleness of this continent’s climate that demands insight, problem solving, remembering the location of food sources and other cognitive qualities <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcs.75/abstract">in order to survive</a>. Securing food is a major problem in a continent that has regular fires, droughts, heatwaves and storms. Known food sources can suddenly disappear and may not return for some time or remain patchy. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104582/original/image-20151207-22710-15629k6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104582/original/image-20151207-22710-15629k6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104582/original/image-20151207-22710-15629k6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104582/original/image-20151207-22710-15629k6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104582/original/image-20151207-22710-15629k6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104582/original/image-20151207-22710-15629k6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=630&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104582/original/image-20151207-22710-15629k6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=630&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104582/original/image-20151207-22710-15629k6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=630&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Rufous Whistler is a food switcher.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Copyright Gisela Kaplan</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The abilities to travel long distances and learn to utilise different food sources when staple diets are not available provide obvious advantages. One of the remarkable adaptations of many Australian birds is the ability to switch foods. Insect eaters such as Rufous Whistlers and large birds like ravens, magpies and currawongs have even been seen harvesting nectar. </p>
<p>Confirmed hunters of birds and insects such as butcherbirds, <a href="http://eurekamag.com/research/022/306/022306763.php">Torresian crows</a>, currawongs and shrike tits have learned to avoid the toxicity of their prey, be this caterpillars or <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10530-010-9903-8">cane toads</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104587/original/image-20151207-22685-18ibqfq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104587/original/image-20151207-22685-18ibqfq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104587/original/image-20151207-22685-18ibqfq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104587/original/image-20151207-22685-18ibqfq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104587/original/image-20151207-22685-18ibqfq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104587/original/image-20151207-22685-18ibqfq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=623&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104587/original/image-20151207-22685-18ibqfq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=623&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104587/original/image-20151207-22685-18ibqfq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=623&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Torresian Crow is a remarkable problem solver.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Copyright Gisela Kaplan</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So far 18 species of Australian native birds have been identified as <a href="http://www.aainsects.com.au/Pdf-papers-aainsects/Bird/bird-Cacat-2.pdf">tool users</a>, often in relation to <a href="http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=MU972178.pdf">getting food</a>. Noisy Pittas and <a href="http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=MU971084.pdf">White-Winged Choughs</a> know how to use implements to open hard-shelled gastropods. Black-Breasted Buzzards place a rock in their beak and use it as a hammer to <a href="http://www.birdsinbackyards.net/species/Hamirostra-melanosternon">crack open emu eggs</a>. Black Kites may pick up glowing sticks in and around bushfires to <a href="http://blogs.crikey.com.au/northern/2011/06/28/birds-of-the-week-firehawks-of-the-top-end/">start a fire</a> elsewhere and gain access to more food. </p>
<p><a href="http://sciencewise.anu.edu.au/articles/drumming%20parrot">Palm Cockatoos</a> are among the few species worldwide that use and manufacture tools, while <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/109/51/20980.full.pdf">bowerbirds</a> stand out as architects and painters.</p>
<h2>Old, and wise</h2>
<p>All modern <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/101/30/11040">songbirds</a> and a number of other lineages (such as ducks, chickens, pigeons, <a href="http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/10/2141.abstract">parrots and cockatoos</a>) evolved in East Gondwana, now Australia.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104584/original/image-20151207-22673-11fvvxn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104584/original/image-20151207-22673-11fvvxn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104584/original/image-20151207-22673-11fvvxn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104584/original/image-20151207-22673-11fvvxn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104584/original/image-20151207-22673-11fvvxn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104584/original/image-20151207-22673-11fvvxn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=584&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104584/original/image-20151207-22673-11fvvxn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=584&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104584/original/image-20151207-22673-11fvvxn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=584&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cockatoos are an ancient Australian lineage and have exceptionally large brains.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Copyright Gisela Kaplan</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Cockatoos evolved around 90 million years ago and have very large brains in relation to body size; the largest in the Palm Cockatoo. Among parrots, the Budgerigar and the Musk Lorikeet have particularly large brains compared to body size. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104591/original/image-20151207-22689-193u94l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104591/original/image-20151207-22689-193u94l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104591/original/image-20151207-22689-193u94l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104591/original/image-20151207-22689-193u94l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104591/original/image-20151207-22689-193u94l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104591/original/image-20151207-22689-193u94l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104591/original/image-20151207-22689-193u94l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104591/original/image-20151207-22689-193u94l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Great Bowerbirds and other bowerbird species may use ‘paintbrushes’ (plant pads) to add colour to their bower. The Great Bowerbird adds optical illusion to the construction of the bower path. Very clever indeed.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Copyright Gisela Kaplan</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Satin Bowerbird and Great Bowerbird have above-average <a href="http://riel.cdu.edu.au/publications/register/9866">brain-body ratios</a>. So do some honeyeaters, Noisy Miners and possibly the corvids, known worldwide for showing behaviour that requires problem solving. </p>
<p>Australian birds tend to be long-lived, have long breeding seasons and share parental or group care of offspring, often for extended periods. Indeed, Australia is a hotspot for <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6165/1506">co-operative species</a>. These conditions provide time for youngsters to learn and play while still protected. Moreover, time is one of the prerequisites for growing a large brain.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104580/original/image-20151207-22680-19gknme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104580/original/image-20151207-22680-19gknme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=153&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104580/original/image-20151207-22680-19gknme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=153&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104580/original/image-20151207-22680-19gknme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=153&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104580/original/image-20151207-22680-19gknme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=192&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104580/original/image-20151207-22680-19gknme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=192&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104580/original/image-20151207-22680-19gknme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=192&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cooperative species:1: White-Winged Chough; 2: Apostlebird; 3: Grey-Crowned Babbler – 1 and 2 belong to the same family of mud nesters; 2 and 3 (of a separate family) are often seen foraging in the same area. All three have in common that they not only raise offspring as a group but share foraging and roosting as joint activities.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Copyright Gisela Kaplan</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Magpies may belong to the few species worldwide that can play a meaningful game of hide and seek, comparable to the performance of <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9507.00245/abstract">3-5-year-old children</a>. Birds can express <a href="https://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/melissa.bateson/Bateson_Matheson_2007.pdf">complex emotions</a>, even showing empathy and grief. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104592/original/image-20151207-22677-gfz3te.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104592/original/image-20151207-22677-gfz3te.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104592/original/image-20151207-22677-gfz3te.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104592/original/image-20151207-22677-gfz3te.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104592/original/image-20151207-22677-gfz3te.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104592/original/image-20151207-22677-gfz3te.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=472&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104592/original/image-20151207-22677-gfz3te.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=472&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/104592/original/image-20151207-22677-gfz3te.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=472&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Magpie juveniles negotiating a game of hide and seek.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Copyright Gisela Kaplan</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The lives of native birds are complex and depend on more than instinct to survive. This includes a superb long-term memory, minds capable of complex behaviour, extensive communication and good decision-making. </p>
<p>Australian birds are beautiful and odd, resourceful and innovative. Not just pretty things, they are also curious, emotional, smart and adaptable.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51475/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gisela Kaplan has received funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC)</span></em></p>Australian birds are arguably among the smartest in the world, displaying complex behaviours comparable to those observed in great apes.Gisela Kaplan, Professor of Animal Behaviour, University of New EnglandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/258472014-04-24T05:16:19Z2014-04-24T05:16:19ZLike humans, apes and crows, dolphins use tools to explore the parts others cannot reach<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46930/original/8x6wnb39-1398261971.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A right sponger.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://pixabay.com/en/dolphin-marine-mammals-water-sea-203875/">Claudia14</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The use of tools is one example of the growing capacity for analytical thought and invention in apes and early humans. The earliest flint-knapped <a href="http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/behavior/tools/early-tools">stone cutting tools</a> date from around 2.6 million years ago. Great apes such as chimpanzees are also known to use tools, from <a href="http://www.livescience.com/4395-chimps-spears-hunt-bushbabies.html">primitive spears</a> to <a href="http://www.livescience.com/5685-chimps-pack-specialized-tool-kits.html">specialised tools</a> used to forage for ants.</p>
<p>While tool use is rare in the animal kingdom, it is known among other species. Crows, for example, <a href="https://theconversation.com/crows-the-technological-tool-specialists-of-the-avian-world-19213">use sticks</a> to extract snails from shells. And the use of tools has even been documented even in dolphins. </p>
<p>In one population of Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins (<em>Tursiops aduncus</em>) in <a href="http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/578">Shark Bay</a>, Western Australia, members <a href="http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1784/20140374">use sponges</a> for foraging. Lacking hands, they pick up and wear the sponges over their rostra (beak), possibly to protect themselves from sharp objects and noxious critters when probing in the sea floor sediment.</p>
<p>Previous work has shown that it is mainly daughters that learn the sponging behaviour <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050606/full/news050606-2.html">from their mothers</a>, and that this is passed on through social learning <a href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0500232102">cultural transmission</a>. As among humans and as documented in numerous other animal species, the innovation of sponging is transmitted via social learning mechanisms between individuals, such as daughters closely observing their mothers when they use sponges as tools.</p>
<p>The sponging-foraging technique was thought to be part of dolphins’ efforts to find nutritious, <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003868">bottom-dwelling fish</a> that do not have a swim bladder. As the dolphins’ echolocation sense uses the swim bladder to detect fish, a lack of it makes it hard or impossible for the dolphin to detect them with sonar. But until now there’s not been much evidence to support this idea.</p>
<p>Our team made up of scientists from the University of Zurich, Switzerland, Murdoch University and the University of New South Wales in Australia, as well as the Marine Scotland Science labs, used <a href="http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/methods/fatacid.html">fatty acid signature analysis</a> to identify dietary differences between the dolphins that use sponges and those that do not. The aim was to detect differences in the blubber, where fatty acids from fish prey are deposited. Differences between those that use sponge tools and those that don’t would suggest differences in the long-term diet.</p>
<p>We sampled 36 dolphins from two different research sites in Shark Bay, of which 11 were routine tool-users. At each site, we found evidence of a clear dietary difference between the two groups. In fact the differences were pronounced enough to be usually associated with different populations from different areas, or even differing species, rather than those found among individuals sharing the same habitat. </p>
<p>The fatty acid profile found in Shark Bay dolphins that do not use tools is the same, which demonstrates that the tool-using dolphins are able to exploit an ecological niche and the food it offers that would otherwise not be available to them.</p>
<p>Cultural transmission, including of tool use, has been identified as the major driver of human evolution. The dolphins’ method for finding new food sources has led to a significant reduction in competition for food – perhaps one of the reasons why it is in Shark Bay that the highest density of dolphins are found.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/25847/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Krützen receives funding and/or support from Swiss National Science Foundation, National Geographic Society, W.V. Scott Foundation, SeaWorld Research and Rescue Foundation, Shark Bay Resources Pty Ltd., Aspen Parks, Monkey Mia Dolphin Resort</span></em></p>The use of tools is one example of the growing capacity for analytical thought and invention in apes and early humans. The earliest flint-knapped stone cutting tools date from around 2.6 million years…Michael Krützen, Senior Lecturer, University of ZurichLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.