Evaluating information-seeking approaches to metacognition

Metacognition has been divided into information monitoring and control processes. Monitoring involves knowing that you know or do not know some information without taking corrective action. Control involves taking corrective action based on the knowledge that you know or do not know some information. In comparative metacognition, considerable attention has been paid toward critically assessing putative evidence for information monitoring in non-human animals. However, less attention has been paid toward critically evaluating evidence for control processes in animals. We briefly review a critique of information-monitoring in animals. Next, we apply these concepts to a number of studies that focus on information seeking in animals. The main type of evidence for control processes in animals come from tube tipping experiments. Before having the opportunity to search for the bait in these experiments, the subject sometimes observes opaque tubes being baited but is sometimes prevented from seeing the baiting. The observations that the subjects look more if baiting was not seen and are more accurate if baiting was seen have been taken as evidence for metacognition in information-seeking experiments. We propose simple alternative hypotheses that are sufficient to explain putative evidence for information seeking in animals without positing metacognition. The alternative explanation focuses on two relatively simple principles： First, an animal has a default ＂look before you go＂ response which supersedes random searches in space. Second, spatially guided behavior follows a default rule of ＂go where something good is.＂ These principles can explain the results of tube tipping experiments without proposing metacognition [Current Zoology 57 （4）： 531-542, 2011].

Comprehension of functional support by enculturated chimpanzees Pan troglodytes

Studies of causal understanding of tool relationships in captive chimpanzees have yielded disparate findings, particularly those reported by Povinelli ＆ colleagues （2000） for tool tasks by laboratory chimpanzees. The present set of experiments tested nine enculturated chimpanzees on three versions of a support task, as described by Povinelli （2000）, during which food re- wards were presented in different experimental configurations. In Experiment 1, stimulus pairs included a choice between a cloth with a reward on the upper right comer or with a second reward off the cloth, adjacent to a comer, with the second pair comprised of a cloth with food on the upper right comer, and a second cloth with the reward on the substrate, partially covered. All subjects were successful with both test conditions in Experiment 1. In a second study, the experimental choices included one of two possi- ble correct options, paired with one of three incorrect options, with the three incorrect choices all involving varying degrees of perceptual containment. All nine chimpanzees scored significantly above chance across all six conditions. In Experiment 3, four unique conditions were presented, combining one of two possible correct choices with one of two incorrect choices. Six of the subjects scored significantly above chance across the four conditions, and group performance on individual conditions was also significant. Superior performance was demonstrated by female subjects in Experiment 3, similar to sex differences in tool use previously reported for wild chimpanzees and some tool tasks in captive chimpanzees. The present results for Experiments 2 ＆ 3 were significantly differed from those reported by Povinelli et al. （2000） for laboratory-born, peer-reared chimpanzees. One contribution towards the dramatic differences between the two study populations may be the significant rearing and housing differences of the chimpanzee groups. One explanation is that under conditions of enculturation, rich social interactions with humans and conspecifics, as well as active exploration of artifacts, materials, and other aspects of their physical environment had a significant impact on the animals＇ ability to recognize the support relationships among the stimulus choices. Overall, the present findings provide strong support for the hypothesis that our chimpanzee subjects based their responses on an understanding of functional support which represented one facet of their folk physics repertoire [Current Zoology 57 （4）： 429-440, 2011].

Inference by exclusion in the red-tailed black cockatoo(Calyptorhynchus banksii)

Inference by exclusion is the ability to select a given option by excluding the others.When designed appropri­ately,tests of this ability can reveal choices that cannot be explained by associative processes.Over the past de­cade,exclusion reasoning has been explored in several non-human taxonomic groups,including birds,mainly in Corvids and Parrots.To increase our understanding of the taxonomic distribution of exclusion reasoning and,therefore,its evolution,we investigated exclusion performances in red-tailed black cockatoos(Calyptorhyn­chus banksii),an Australian relative of the Goffin cockatoo(Cacatua goffini),using a food-finding task.Cock­atoos were required to find a food item hidden in 1 of the 2 experimenter’s hands.Following training sessions in which they reliably selected the closed baited hand they had just been shown open,each individual was test­ed on 4 different conditions.Critical to demonstrating exclusion reasoning was the condition in which they were shown the empty hand and then offered a choice of both closed hands.The performance of all birds was above chance on all experimental conditions but not on an olfactory and/or cuing control condition.The results sug­gest that the birds might be able to infer by exclusion,although an explanation based on rule learning cannot be excluded.This first experiment in red-tailed black cockatoo highlights the potential of this species as a model to study avian cognition and paves the pathway for future investigations.