Human Infants and Our Great-ape Kin Share a Cognitive Strategy

[Vita Curator]

I posted this in the other forum that I participate in occasionally (my apologies to Bob because I know that he already read it over there).  I thought that it was very interesting as it showed how scientists were trying to study the evolution of our cognitive development.

While reading neuroscience news headlines today, I found this article that describes how researchers showed that human infants displayed the same
preferences as all other great apes in their strategies for remembering where things are, but that these preferences shift as humans develop.

Fossils tell us nothing about our ancestor's cognitive processes so studies like this one are invaluable in assisting us in the insights of their cognitive structures.

This research attempted to trace the evolution of human cognitive abilities and tendencies by comparing them with the skills of our nearest cousins in order to identify what we likely have inherited from our common ancestor."Daniel Haun and his colleagues have carried out the first research of its kind into the cognitive preferences of the five species of great apes- orangutans, gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees and humans - to establish which cognitive strategies they prefer in order to uncover hidden characteristics. The researchers worked on the assumption that if all five species share particular preferences, these are very probably a part of the evolutionary legacy of our most recent common ancestors, who died out some 15 million years ago."

There are two basic strategies for trying to remember the location of something:
One, remember the features of the item, or two, remember the spatial placement, left, right, etc.

All animals who have been previously tested seem to employ both tactics, though different animals show a preference for one strategy over the other.

In the experiment the researchers hid objects using the two different strategies, place and feature. In the place strategy, the item remained in the same place where it was previously hidden, but under a different object. In the feature strategy, the object remained the same but was put into a different place.

It was shown that all four great ape species and one-year-old children actually use the location as a way of finding something hidden, even if it is hidden under a completely different object. This outcome suggests that this preference has been part of our cognitive structure for 15 million years.

The researchers then investigated three-year-old children and discovered a difference: Unlike younger children, they considered the object under which the item was hidden to be the most reliable indication of its whereabouts, even if the location had changed completely.

The scientists had sufficient evidence to conclude that 1-year-old children and great apes do not lack the capability to develop a feature-based strategy, but simply prefer to use a place-based strategy. Evidently, humans reassess these preferences as their cognitive development continues."This change in cognitive preference indicates a uniquely human developmental trajectory when compared to the cognitive development of other great apes, and it informs our general understanding of which aspects of our cognitive development have evolved within the human lineage."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.p...

http://www.current-biology.com/

[beagle]

(Think the first link got mangled a bit there- doesn't work for me).

This is way outside my area of expertise, and the language has thrown me a little. Is the implication that  humans by the age of three notice that objects are often found in containers, and have learnt that seeing the outer container is a more reliable indicator of the inner object than where the object was last left, whereas apes would stubbornly stick to the location strategy, even if raised in the same environment?

What is the important thing? That we are flexible enough to throw away any strategy that has been superceded, or that evolution caused us to develop a particular new strategy "wired-in"?

[Vita Curator]

Hi Beagle,

Sorry, about the broken kink, hopefully this one will work (I really need to double check these links before I post them).

Personally, I think that the flexibility or the continuation of our cognitive development is the important aspect.  We initially employ a strategy shaped by evolution but this strategy becomes masked fairly early on in our cognitive development (by age 3).  It is also important because I think that it will lead researchers to a more in-depth understanding of the origins of human thinking.  They next need to try to find out what areas of cognitive development specifically may be responsible for this shift in our cognitive preferences, for example, could it be the acquisition of language? 

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=51269

[The Meromorph]

One interpretation might be that the human infants are noticing that people use containers and that therefore the container as an identifier of contents might be more reliable. Artifact-based-culture experience, versus environmental-experience learning. Though that's a minor observation, I think it's an interesting approach.

[Griffin NoName]

I lost my car keys recently.

I looked for them in the usual place, the top right hand corner of an open box (about 15cm x 9 cm and shallow like a tray) inside a drawer.

They weren't there and a mighty panic and row with my son ensued (he was going to use the car to go buy me some food).

Over the next month (during which I was too ill to drive) I looked many times in this place for my keys, knowing they weren't there but unwilling to accept it.

Finally, one day, looking yet again, I saw the keys in the bottom left hand corner of the box, in full view, easily identifiable by their brightly coloured and large key tag. Nothing had ever been placed over the box. They were in full view at all times, but I didn't see them.

Given this research, should I assume that I have not yet reached the cognitive skills of a three year old?

[Aphos]

Finally, one day, looking yet again, I saw the keys in the bottom left hand corner of the box, in full view, easily identifiable by their brightly coloured and large key tag. Nothing had ever been placed over the box. They were in full view at all times, but I didn't see them.

Given this research, should I assume that I have not yet reached the cognitive skills of a three year old?

Nonsense.  It is just proof that space aliens abducted your keys and kept them for a month.  Only when they were finished probing them did the aliens return the keys.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

That (probing) should be particularily traumatic for a key, don't you think? OTOH the lock must be thinking that it had it coming.