Sarah-Jane Vick

A growing body of evidence suggests that human language may have emerged primarily in the gestural rather than vocal domain, and that studying gestural communication in great apes is crucial to understanding language evolution. Although manual and bodily gestures are considered distinct at a neural level, there has been very limited consideration of potential differences at a behavioural level. In this study, we conducted naturalistic observations of adult wild East African chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) in order to establish a repertoire of gestures, and examine intentionality of gesture production, use and comprehension, comparing across manual and bodily gestures. At the population level, 120 distinct gesture types were identified, consisting of 65 manual gestures and 55 bodily gestures. Both bodily and manual gestures were used intentionally and effectively to attain specific goals, by signallers who were sensitive to recipient attention. However, manual gestures differed from bodily gestures in terms of communicative persistence, indicating a qualitatively different form of behavioural flexibility in achieving goals. Both repertoire size and frequency of manual gesturing were more affiliative than bodily gestures, while bodily gestures were more antagonistic. These results indicate that manual gestures may have played a significant role in the emergence of increased flexibility in great ape communication and social bonding.

Gaze cues are used as an index of social cognition in primates, yet the sensitivity to different forms of gaze, and consequently the cues required to test gaze-following abilities remain understudied. Whereas the eye is attributed special signal value in humans, the camouflaged ocular morphology of non-human primates has led to the consensus that head orientation may be a more salient cue. This study presents the first documentation of the surface eye movements of the chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes, in order to determine the behavioral forms of eye-gaze and their saliency as signals, document their functional variation, and address the signal value of the eyes distinct from head orientation. Movements of the eye were identified as Scan (continuous movement), Glance (a single movement <1 sec), or Fixate (no movement). Scans, glances, and fixations were reliably detected by humans during live observation and from video (Cohen's kappa over 0.70) and, therefore, are likely also to be detected by conspecifics. Eye-gaze comprised a nonunitary measure of visual attention, reflecting the attentional task demands of different activities. Specifically, chimpanzees spent significantly more time scanning while feeding and resting, than grooming, F(2,28) = 10.23, P<0.001, and spent significantly more time fixating while grooming, than feeding or resting, F(2,28) = 7.52, P<0.01. Further, eye-gaze was often incongruent with head movement, varying significantly with the form of eye-gaze: incongruence was found during 12–21% of fixations, during 42–49% of scans, and during 70–100% of glances, F(2,16) = 30.17, P<0.001. These findings provide the basis for discrimination of the adaptive significance of gaze-processing abilities with emphasis on sensitivity to eye-gaze distinct from head orientation. If we are to continue exploring gaze-processing abilities in primates, then we need greater consideration of the precise nature of the signals themselves. Here we present evidence for special consideration of the eyes as a salient signal in P. troglodytes. Am. J. Primatol. 69:562–575, 2007. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

The ability of 3 capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) to use experimenter-given cues to solve an object-choice task was assessed. The monkeys learned to use explicit gestural and postural cues and then progressed to using eye-gaze-only cues to solve the task, that is, to choose the baited 1 of 2 objects and thus obtain a food reward. Increasing cue-stimulus distance and introducing movement of the eyes impeded the establishment of effective eye-gaze reading. One monkey showed positive but imperfect transfer of use of eye gaze when a novel experimenter presented the cue. When head and eye orientation cues were presented simultaneously and in conflict, the monkeys showed greater responsiveness to head orientation cues. The results show that capuchin monkeys can learn to use eye gaze as a discriminative cue, but there was no-evidence for any underlying awareness of eye gaze as a cue to direction of attention.