Hand preference on unimanual and bimanual tasks in Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus) (original) (raw)
Related papers
American Journal of Primatology, 2016
Assessing manual lateralization in non-human primates could be an optimal way to understand the adaptive value of this asymmetry in humans. Though many studies have investigated hand preferences in Old and New World monkeys and apes, fewer studies have considered manual lateralization in strepsirrhines, especially in experimental tasks. This study investigated hand preferences for a unimanual and a bimanual task of 17 captive ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta), housed at Parco Natura Viva (VR), Italy. The effect of age on handedness has been also investigated. The lemurs were tested on a unimanual task, in which subjects were restricted to using one hand to retrieve the food inside an apparatus, and on a bimanual task, in which lemurs had to use one hand to keep the apparatus door open while reaching with the other hand to retrieve the food inside it. At the population-level, our results revealed an asymmetrical hand use distribution, in particular a bias toward a right hand preference for food reaching in both the unimanual and the bimanual tasks. Furthermore, at the individual-level, the bimanual task seems to elicit a greater hand preference than the unimanual task. Results of this study underline the importance of experimental tasks in determining hand preference in strepsirrhines. Furthermore, as bimanual tasks elicited a stronger degree of lateralization, they appear to be more suited to investigate manual laterality. Finally, findings from this study highlight the presence of a right hand preference in ring-tailed lemurs, shedding new light on the evolution of human right handedness. Am. J. Primatol.
Handedness as a function of sex and age in a large population of Lemur
Journal of Comparative Psychology, 1990
A population of 194 lemurs (Lemur spp.), 116 males and 78 females, from 1 to 30 years of age, was assessed for lateralized hand use in simple food reaching with a minimum of 100 reaches per animal. A hand preference was present in 80% of the population with a bias for use of the left hand that was most characteristic of male lemurs and young lemurs. The results confirm the presence of lateralization in prosimians, and we interpret the sex and age differences in relation to current theories of neural lateralization.
Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 1997
The last decade has seen a resurgence of interest in laterality of function in primates, especially in hand use as it links to handedness and language in Homo sapiens. Manual lateralization of behavior in humans reflects asymmetry in cerebral structure, which must have evolved from nonhuman progenitors. To what extent is hand function lateralized in our nearest living relations? First, we address current issues of theory and methodology: statistics, measurement, variables, setting, sensory modality, and sample size. Specific topics include preference vs. performance, posture, bimanuality, inheritance, and arm asymmetry. We categorize the published literature in a descriptive, classificatory framework of five levels that range from Level 1, ambilaterality, to Level 5, human-like handedness. In a meta-analysis we put 241 published data-sets to a methodological test of seven criteria and code the 48 survivors onto the levels framework, by taxonomic grouping (prosimian, New World monkey, Old World monkey, ape, chimpanzee). Primates at Level 1 are mostly wild or naturalistic populations performing spontaneous species-typical behavior patterns. Most primates are at Levels 2 and 3, that is, individually lateralized to either side, especially on complex, demanding or practiced tasks, usually as devised in captive settings. Only chimpanzees show signs of population-level bias (Levels 4 and 5) to the right, but only in captivity and only incompletely. We conclude that nonhuman primate hand function has not been shown to be lateralized at the species level-it is not the norm for any species, task, or setting, and so offers no easy model for the evolution of human handedness.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1997
The last decade has seen a resurgence of interest in laterality of function in primates, especially in hand use as it links to handedness and language in Homo sapiens. Manual lateralization of behavior in humans reflects asymmetry in cerebral structure, which must have evolved from nonhuman progenitors. To what extent is hand function lateralized in our nearest living relations? First, we address current issues of theory and methodology: statistics, measurement, variables, setting, sensory modality, and sample size. Specific topics include preference vs. performance, posture, bimanuality, inheritance, and arm asymmetry. We categorize the published literature in a descriptive, classificatory framework of five levels that range from Level 1, ambilaterality, to Level 5, human-like handedness. In a meta-analysis we put 241 published data-sets to a methodological test of seven criteria and code the 48 survivors onto the levels framework, by taxonomic grouping (prosimian, New World monkey, Old World monkey, ape, chimpanzee). Primates at Level 1 are mostly wild or naturalistic populations performing spontaneous species-typical behavior patterns. Most primates are at Levels 2 and 3, that is, individually lateralized to either side, especially on complex, demanding or practiced tasks, usually as devised in captive settings. Only chimpanzees show signs of population-level bias (Levels 4 and 5) to the right, but only in captivity and only incompletely. We conclude that nonhuman primate hand function has not been shown to be lateralized at the species level-it is not the norm for any species, task, or setting, and so offers no easy model for the evolution of human handedness.
Journal of Comparative Psychology, 1996
This research examined hand preference for a bimanual task in 45 tufted capuchin (Cebus apella) and 55 rhesus macaque (Macaco mulatto) monkeys. Investigators presented subjects with plastic tubes lined with food and noted which hand the animals used to hold the tubes and which hand the animals used to remove the food. Several significant findings emerged from this investigation. First, rhesus macaques, but not tufted capuchins, exhibited a population-level bias toward use of the right hand (although the difference in direction of hand preference between species was not significant). Second, capuchins exhibited greater hand preference strength than did macaques. Third, among capuchins, but not among macaques, hand preference strength was greater for adults than for immatures. Finally, both species used their index digit to remove food most frequently when compared with other digits. Findings of hand preference direction and strength in this study were compared with other findings noted for chimpanzees which performed a bimanual tube task in a previous study. The authors conclude that using the same procedure to compare hand preference across species represents a powerful research tool that can lead to a more complete understanding of the evolution and ontogenesis of primate handedness. The origins of primate handedness are unclear at the present time. Approximately 90% of the human population is right-handed (Annett, 1985), and the corresponding lefthemisphere specialization for manual control is believed to have played a prominent role in lateralization of language and other cognitive functions (Calvin, 1994). MacNeilage, Studdert-Kennedy, and Lindblom (1987) argued that primate handedness evolved through selection pressures that favored lateral bias for postural support and feeding. They hypothesized that primates first evolved a left-hand specialization for visually guided reaching and later a righthand specialization for fine manipulation and bimanual coordination. Several studies have examined hand preference for bimanual tasks in great apes. These studies indicate that chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas are biased toward use of their left hand for holding and biased toward use of their
Manual lateralization in early primates: A comparison of two mouse lemur species
American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2008
In humans, 90% of the population is right handed. Although population hand preference has been found in some primate species, the evolution of manual lateralization in primates is not yet clear. To gain insight into manual lateralization of ancestral primates, we studied hand usage in unspecialized quadrupedal, nocturnal lemurs, using a large sample size. We compared two closely related mouse lemur species to explore the variation of hand preference within the same genus. We tested 44 gray mouse lemurs and 19 Goodman's mouse lemurs in a forced food grasping task.
International journal of primatology, 2003
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability of previously published findings on hand preferences in chimpanzees by evaluating hand use in a second colony of captive chimpanzees. We assessed hand preferences for a coordinated bimanual task in 116 chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) at the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center and compared them to previously published findings in captive chimpanzees at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center. The new sample showed significant population-level right handedness, which is consistent with previously published findings in the Yerkes chimpanzees. Combined data on the 2 chimpanzee colonies, revealed a significant effect of rearing history on hand preference, with wild-caught chimpanzees showing less right-handedness than captive-born mother-reared chimpanzees. We discuss the results in terms of the role of early environment on the development of laterality.
Hand preferences in Barbary macaques ( Macaca sylvanus )
Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 2008
Nearly 90% of humans are right-handed, raising the question of the evolutionary origins of this trait. While lateralisation of certain actions appears to be widespread in vertebrates, the question of whether nonhuman primates exhibit hand preferences at the population level is often contested. We observed Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus) living in the outdoor enclosure ''La Forêt des Singes'' at Rocamadour, France, while performing simple unimanual and coordinated bimanual tasks. For the unimanual task, we recorded continuously which hand they used reaching for grains. For the coordinated bimanual tasks, a semi-transparent box and a tube baited with peanut butter were presented to the macaques and the hand used to open the box or reach into the tube, respectively, was recorded. We found no significant hand preference in any of the tasks at the population level, but found individual hand preferences, the extent of which varied among individuals. For the unimanual, but not the bimanual task, we found that the handedness index increased with age. Our results add to the growing body of evidence that monkeys do not show hand preference at the population level.
The evolution of handedness in humans and great apes: a review and current issues
2008
Population-level right-handedness is a defining characteristic of humans. Despite extensive research, we still do not know the conditions or timing of its emergence in human evolution. We present a review of research into the origins of handedness, based on fossil and archaeological data for hand preference and great ape hand-use. The data show that skeletal asymmetries in arm and hand bones supporting a rightsided dominance were present at least in the genus Homo, although data are more robust for Neanderthals. The evidence from tool-use, production, and cave art confirms that right-hand preference was established in Neanderthals and was maintained until the present. The great apes can provide real-life models for testing the conditions that facilitate or enhance hand preference at both the individual and group levels. The database on great ape hand-use indicates that they do exhibit hand preferences, especially in complex tasks. However, their preferences vary between tasks, and while group-level biases have occasionally been reported, no human-like handedness bias has been found. We discuss the methodological problems encountered in these approaches. Shared problems include a lack of agreed terminology both within and between disciplines, small sample sizes, interpretation biases and a failure to replicate experiments. In general, there is a paucity of fossil material, with poor preservation hampering traditional metric methods. The archaeological data are often founded on unreliable methods. The primate database is plagued by the use of measures that could be inappropriate for revealing hand preference, and by methodological inconsistencies between studies. We emphasise the need to standardise the methods to allow between studies and species comparisons. We propose that when referring to "handedness" it is more appropriate to use the terms "hand preference" and "hand use", to avoid confusion with each discipline's own definition of handedness.