1,721,012 research outputs found
Ant-dummy project documentation and code
No full textThis repository contains the data and script used in the ant-dummy project entitled: "Precise tactile stimulation of worker ants by a robotic manipulator reveals that individual responses are density- and context-dependent" by Matthias Rüegg*, Alba Motes-Rodrigo*, Alexandre Tuleu, Nathalie Stroeymeyt, Thomas O. Richardson, Mahmut Selman Sakar, Laurent Kelle
Ape Knapping demonstration experiments chimps and gorillas
No full textData sets and code used to analyzed the data from the social knapping experiments with chimpanzees and gorillas at Twycross zo
Ape Knapping demonstration experiments chimps and gorillas
No full textData sets and code used to analyzed the data from the social knapping experiments with chimpanzees and gorillas at Twycross zo
Chimpanzee Stone Tool Baseline
No full textThis project is part of the ERC funded STONECULT project granted to Dr. Claudio Tennie. In this part of the project, we report the results of baseline experiments conducted with captive chimpanzees where no social demonstrations were provided
Ape knapping then and now: limited spontaneous social learning of stone-tool production and use in non-human apes
No full textApe knapping experiments complement human knapping experiments as a source of behavioural data to build hypotheses about the learning mechanisms underlying the acquisition of knapping skills in extinct hominins. In addition, ape knapping experiments provide information regarding the stone-related behaviours that could have preceded the systematic production and use of sharp stones in our lineage. In this chapter we review previous ape knapping experiments with a focus on those that tested apes' abilities to socially learn from human demonstrators. Two studies, investigating one orangutan and one bonobo, concluded that both apes could socially learn sharp stone tool-making and use from human demonstrations. These results were interpreted as evidence of the reliance of early hominins on social learning to acquire knapping skills. However, alternative explanations exist. We provide novel data from two experiments investigating the abilities of the two previously untested great ape species (chimpanzees and gorillas) to learn knapping from human demonstrations. Contrary to the previous studies, the chimpanzees and gorillas in our experiments did not acquire sharp stone tool-making or use socially from human demonstrations. However, the apes we tested frequently manipulated the testing materials and two chimpanzees engaged in two events of lithic percussion involving an active hammer (although these actions did not lead to flake detachment). Our results suggest that the observation of human demonstrations is insufficient for the tested apes to acquire knapping abilities. This disparity in results between studies is unlikely to be explained by species differences in tool-use proficiency but rather by the particular rearing background of the previously tested individuals. We discuss how our previous results on both the individual and social learning abilities of unenculturated, untrained orangutans compare to our new results on gorillas and chimpanzees. In addition, we comment on the general implications of ape knapping experiments for understanding the likely origin and maintenance of knapping skills in pre-modern hominins
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
No full textThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
