Animal Cognition

, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp 1243–1253 | Cite as

Perception of chasing in squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus)

  • Takeshi AtsumiEmail author
  • Yasuo Nagasaka
Original Paper


Understanding the intentions of others is crucial in developing positive social relationships. Comparative human and non-human animal studies have addressed the phylogenetic origin of this ability. However, few studies have explored the importance of motion information in distinguishing others’ intentions and goals in non-human primates. This study addressed whether squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) are able to perceive a goal-directed motion pattern—specifically, chasing—represented by two geometric objects. In Experiment 1, we trained squirrel monkeys to discriminate a “Chasing” sequence from a “Random” sequence. We then confirmed that this discrimination transferred to new stimuli (“Chasing” and “Random”) in a probe test. To determine whether the monkeys used similarities of trajectory to discriminate chasing from random motion, we also presented a non-chasing “Clone” sequence in which the trajectories of the two figures were identical. Three of six monkeys were able to discriminate “Chasing” from the other sequences. In Experiment 2, we confirmed humans’ recognition of chasing with the stimuli from Experiment 1. In Experiment 3, the three monkeys for which discrimination did not transfer to the new stimuli in Experiment 1 were trained to discriminate between “Chasing” and “Clone” sequences. At testing, all three monkeys had learned to discriminate chasing, and two transferred their learning to new stimuli. Our results suggest that squirrel monkeys use goal-directed motion patterns, rather than simply similarity of trajectory, to discriminate chasing. Further investigation is necessary to identify the motion characteristics that contribute to this discrimination.


Motion perception Animacy Goal attribution Chasing Squirrel monkeys 



The authors are grateful to Yoshihisa Osada and Koji Hori for the laboratory setting. We would also like to thank Souta Hidaka and Nobuo Masataka for their valuable comments. We appreciate the insightful input of the anonymous reviewers and the journal editor on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MPG 128 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (MPG 119 kb)

Supplementary material 3 (MPG 157 kb)


  1. Barrett HC, Todd PM, Miller GF, Blythe PW (2005) Accurate judgments of intention from motion cues alone: a cross-cultural study. Evol Hum Behav 26:313–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Comtois R (2003) Vision shell ppc [software libraries]. Raynald Comtois, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Dasser V, Ulbaek I, Premack D (1989) The perception of intention. Science 243:365–367CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Dittrich WH, Lea SE (1994) Visual perception of intentional motion. Perception 23:65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Frankenhuis WE, House B, Barrett HC, Johnson SP (2013) Infants’ perception of chasing. Cognition 126:224–233PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Gao T, Scholl BJ (2011) Chasing vs. stalking: interrupting the perception of animacy. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 37:669–684CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gao T, Newman GE, Scholl BJ (2009) The psychophysics of chasing: a case study in the perception of animacy. Cognit Psychol 59:154–179CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Gao T, Scholl BJ, McCarthy G (2012) Dissociating the detection of intentionality from animacy in the right posterior superior temporal sulcus. J Neurosci 32:14276–14280PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Gergely G, Csibra G (2003) Teleological reasoning in infancy: the naïve theory of rational action. Trends Cognit Sci 7:287–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gergely G, Nádasdy Z, Csibra G, Bíró S (1995) Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age. Cognition 56:165–193CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Gillespie-Lynch K, Elias R, Escudero P, Hutman T, Johnson SP (2013) Atypical gaze following in Autism: a comparison of three potential mechanisms. J Neurodev Disord 43:2779–2792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goto K, Lea S, Dittrich W (2002) Discrimination of intentional and random motion paths by pigeons. Anim Cogn 5:119–127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Heider F, Simmel M (1944) An experimental study of apparent behavior. Am J Psychol 57:243–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jameson K, Appleby M, Freeman L (1999) Finding an appropriate order for a hierarchy based on probabilistic dominance. Anim Behav 57:991–998CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kanakogi Y, Okumura Y, Inoue Y, Kitazaki M, Itakura S (2013) Rudimentary sympathy in preverbal infants: preference for others in distress. PLoS One 8:e65292PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Klin A (2000) Attributing social meaning to ambiguous visual stimuli in higher-functioning autism and Asperger syndrome: the social attribution task. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 41:831–846CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Mascalzoni E, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2010) Innate sensitivity for self-propelled causal agency in newly hatched chicks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:4483–4485PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. McAleer P, Kay JW, Pollick FE, Rutherford MD (2011) Intention perception in high functioning people with Autism Spectrum Disorders using animacy displays derived from human actions. J Autism Dev Disord 41:1053–1063CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Opfer JE (2002) Identifying living and sentient kinds from dynamic information: the case of goal-directed versus aimless autonomous movement in conceptual change. Cognition 86:97–122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Premack D (1990) The infant’s theory of self-propelled objects. Cognition 36:1–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Rimé B, Boulanger B, Laubin P, Richir M (1985) The perception of interpersonal emotions originated by patterns of movement. Motiv Emot 9:241–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rochat P, Morgan R, Carpenter M (1997) Young infants’ sensitivity to movement information specifying social causality. Cognit Dev 74:537–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rutherford MD, Pennington BF, Rogers SJ (2006) The perception of animacy in young children with autism. J Autism Dev Disord 36:983–992CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Santos NS, David N, Bente G, Vogeley K (2008) Parametric induction of animacy experience. Conscious Cognit 17:425–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schultz J, Friston KJ, O’Doherty J, Wolpert DM, Frith CD (2005) Activation in posterior superior temporal sulcus parallels parameter inducing the percept of animacy. Neuron 45:625–635CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Tsutsumi S, Ushitani T, Tomonaga M, Fujita K (2012) Infant monkeys’ concept of animacy: the role of eyes and fluffiness. Primates J Primatol 53:113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Uller C (2004) Disposition to recognize goals in infant chimpanzees. Anim Cogn 7:154–161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Uller C, Nichols S (2000) Goal attribution in chimpanzees. Cognition 76:B27–B34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Section of Cognition and Learning, Primate Research InstituteKyoto UniversityInuyamaJapan
  2. 2.Laboratory for Adaptive IntelligenceBrain Science InstituteWakoJapan
  3. 3.Eli Lilly JapanChuo-kuJapan

Personalised recommendations