Presentation on theme: "March 3 rd, 2009 Introduction to Tool Use and Causal Understanding What is learned - associative learning of causal understanding? 3 Case Studies:"— Presentation transcript:
Introduction to Tool Use and Causal Understanding What is learned - associative learning of causal understanding? 3 Case Studies: Tool Selection Gravity Tool Manufacture How are causal relations learned?
Insight & Creativity Using the environment in novel ways to achieve goals Planning & Forethought Thinking ahead Responding to stimuli that aren’t in sight Causal Understanding “Folk Physics” Understanding something about how the world works Mediating forces
What is learned? Associative vs. Causal EventOutcome Associative learning: Predict the outcome – what is going to happen next? Causal understanding: WHY and HOW does the outcome occur?
What is learned? Associative vs. Causal Associative: Yellow ball moves after contact with blue ball Causal: Mediating forces – “force” imparted by blue ball is blocked by the barrier
Mediating forces: Different levels of complexity Visible factors Invisible factors Psychological factors Explanatory Attitude
Varied colour, texture, shape and size Colour & texture are not ‘functional’ changes Shape & size could be ‘functional’ changes All canes set in the correct spatial arrangement
Monkeys preferred the non-functional changes Sensitive to changes in potential functionality
Similar results found with capuchins Fujita, Kuroshima & Asai, 2003 Included transfer tests in which an obstacle or a trap was on ‘drag path’ Capuchins failed on these transfers Understand spatial relationship between tool and food, but not tool, food and environment
New Caledonian crows Select tools of appropriate length in sight and out of sight
Betty & Abel In sight:Out of sight (Abel only) -Two strategies: -Match distance or -Choose longest -What if length was un-usable? -Abstract representation (keep representation of tool and intended goal in mind)
Trap in the middle of the tube Learned the task: 1 out of 4 capuchins 2 out of 5 chimps Transfer tests showed that capuchins used a distance based rule
Chimps didn’t use distance based rule Associative rule still possible Insert stick on side of trap
Failure to adjust behaviour on inverted tests But there’s no penalty for not adjusting! Human adults don’t adjust either Instructional problem? Too many factors? Tool, food and environment Adjusted task to remove tool use
Allows subjects to pull or push Prefer to pull Distance and trap rules are not available
New Caledonian crows Similar transfer tests: 3/6 solved the transfers plus a trap-table task
In the wild, tear pandanus leaves Barbed edges of leaf can be used to “fish” for insects in dead wood “cultural variation” in tool manufacture Naive birds can create pandanus tools without teaching
In the lab: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~kgroup/tools/movies.sht ml http://users.ox.ac.uk/~kgroup/tools/movies.sht ml Always inserted straight wire first Insightful?
Blaisdell, Sawa, Leising & Waldmann, 2006 Test: Intervene-Tone or Observe-Tone Common CauseCausal Chain Light Tone Light FoodLight ToneLight Food
Rats Causal explanation: If Tone just occurs, maybe Light came on first and was ‘missed’ Check for food! If I caused the Tone to occur, Light didn’t happen don’t check for food Associative explanation: If there is an association between the tone & food, shouldn’t matter whether you caused it or not check for food at same rate. Chain always check
Rats respond in accordance with causal reasoning, not associative processes
Causal Markov condition During common-cause condition, tone and light should be causally independent But, rats receive only tone or food following the light – they are NOT independent of each other Thus, does not strictly follow causal Bayes net
Criticism: Lack of evidence could be based on inability to properly instruct animals http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZmx0jml1jk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIAoJsS9Ix8& feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIAoJsS9Ix8& feature=related