Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:05:24.204Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Computer-assisted enrichment for zoo-housed orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

LR Tarou ,
CW Kuhar ,
D Adcock ,
MA Bloomsmith  and
TL Maple
LR Tarou*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332, USA
CW Kuhar
Affiliation:
Zoo Atlanta, 800 Cherokee Ave SE, Atlanta, Georgia 303 15, USA School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332, USA
D Adcock
Affiliation:
Zoo Atlanta, 800 Cherokee Ave SE, Atlanta, Georgia 303 15, USA
MA Bloomsmith
Affiliation:
Zoo Atlanta, 800 Cherokee Ave SE, Atlanta, Georgia 303 15, USA School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332, USA
TL Maple
Affiliation:
Zoo Atlanta, 800 Cherokee Ave SE, Atlanta, Georgia 303 15, USA School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332, USA
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: Psychology Department, Grand Valley State University, 2112 AuSable Hall, I Campus Drive, Allendale, Michigan 49401, USA; [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The study of environmental enrichment has identified a variety of effective forms of enrichment, but there are widespread problems associated with their use. Few forms of enrichment are cognitively challenging, and even the most effective often result in rapid habituation. This study examined the use of a computer-joystick system, designed to increase in complexity with learning, as a potential form of enrichment. Eight orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), housed in male/female pairs, were observed for 120 h during a baseline period and 120h when the computer-joystick apparatus was available. Data were collected in 1 h sessions using instantaneous group scan sampling with 30 s intervals. The orangutans spent 25.9% of the scans using the joystick system. One member of each pair monopolised the computer system: ‘high users’ spent 48.9% of scans using the joystick system compared with 2.9% by ‘low users’. Behavioural changes associated with the provision of the computer included increases in aggressive behaviour, anxiety-related behaviours, solitary play, contact with and proximity to a social partner, and decreases in feeding. The lack of habituation by the high users, both within and across sessions, indicates that computer-assisted tasks may be a useful form of environmental enrichment for orangutans. However, the significant increase in aggression indicates that this form of enrichment may be more suitable for singly caged animals, or that the provision of multiple apparatuses should be tested for the ability to eliminate potential competition over the device.

Keywords

animal welfareenrichmentgreat apesnon-human primatesorangutanspsychological well-being
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , November 2004 , pp. 445 - 453
Copyright
© 2004 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Altmann, J 1974 Observational study of behaviour: sampling methods. Behaviour 49: 227–267CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andrews, MW and Rosenblum, LA 1993 Live-social-video reward maintains joystick task performance in bonnet macaques. Perceptual and Motor Skills 77: 755–763CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andrews, MW and Rosenblum, LA 1994 Relative efficacy of video versus food-pellet reward for joystick tasks. Perceptual and Motor Skills 78: 545–546CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, K and Aureli, F 1997 Behavioural indicators of anxiety: an empirical test in chimpanzees. Behaviour 134: 1031–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomsmith, MA 1989 Feeding enrichment for captive great apes. In: Segal, EF (ed) Housing, Care and Psychological Wellbeing of Captive and Laboratory Primates pp 336–356. Noyes Publications: New Jersey, USAGoogle Scholar
Bloomsmith, MA, Alford, PL and Maple, TL 1988 Successful feeding enrichment for captive chimpanzees. American Journal of Primatology 16: 155–164CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bloomsmith, MA, Finlay, TW, Merhalski, JJ and Maple, TL 1990a Rigid plastic balls as enrichment devices for captive chimpanzees. Laboratory Animal Science 40: 319–322Google ScholarPubMed
Bloomsmith, MA, Keeling, ME and Lambeth, SL 1990b Videotapes: environmental enrichment for singly housed chimpanzees. Laboratory Animal Science 19: 42–46Google Scholar
Bloomsmith, MA and Lambeth, SP 2000 Videotapes as enrichment for captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Zoo Biology 19: 541–5513.0.CO;2-3>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bloomsmith, MA, Laule, G, Thurston, R and Alford, P 1994 Using training to moderate aggression during feeding. Zoo Biology 13: 557–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomsmith, MA, Ross, SK and Baker, KC 2000 Control over computer-assisted enrichment for socially housed chimpanzees. American Journal of Primatology 51: 45 (Abstract)Google Scholar
Bloomstrand, M, Riddle, K, Alford, P and Maple, T 1986 Objective evaluation of a behavioural enrichment device for captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Zoo Biology 5: 293–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boccia, ML 1989 Long-term effects of a natural foraging task on aggression and stereotypies in socially housed pig-tail macaques. Laboratory Primate News 28: 18–19Google Scholar
Boccia, ML, Laudenslager, M and Reite, M 1988 Food distribution and aggressive behaviours in bonnet macaques. American Journal of Psychology 16: 123–130Google ScholarPubMed
Boysen, ST and Bernston, GG 1990 The development of numerical skills in the chimpanzee. In: Parker, ST and Gibson, KR (eds) Language and Intelligence in Monkeys and Apes pp 435–450. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Bramblett, CA 1989 Enrichment options for guenons in the laboratory. American Journal of Primatology 1: 59–63 (Suppl)Google Scholar
Brent, L 1995 Feeding enrichment and body weight in captive chimpanzees. Journal of Medical Primatology 24: 12–16CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brent, L, Lee, DR and Eichberg, JW 1989 Evolution of two environmental enrichment devices for singly housed captive chimpanzees. American Journal of Primatology 1: 65–70 (Suppl)Google Scholar
Britt, A 1998 Encouraging natural feeding behaviour in captive-bred black and white ruffed lemurs (Varecia variegata variegata). Zoo Biology 17: 379–3923.0.CO;2-X>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Call, J and Rochat, P 1996 Liquid conservation in orangutan and humans: individual differences and cognitive strategies. Journal of Comparative Psychology 110: 219–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Call, J and Tomasello, M 1994 The social learning of tool use by orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). Human Evolution 9: 297–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamove, AS and Anderson, JR 1989 Examining environmental enrichment. In: Segal, EF (ed) Housing, Care and Psychological Wellbeing of Captive and Laboratory Primates pp 183–199. Noyes Publications: New Jersey, USAGoogle Scholar
Chang, TR, Forthman, DL and Maple, TL 1999 Comparison of confirmed mandrill (Mandrillus sphinx) behaviour in traditional and “ecologically representative” exhibits. Zoo Biology 18: 163–1763.0.CO;2-T>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, M, Penke, Z and van Hooff, JARAM 1998 Post-conflict affiliation and stress-related behaviour of long-tailed macaque aggressors. International Journal of Primatology 19: 53–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desmond, T, Laule, G and McNary, J 1987 Training for socialization and reproduction with drills. In: Proceedings of the AAZPA Conference pp 435–441. American Association of Zoological Parkes and Aquariums: Wheeling, West Virginia, USAGoogle Scholar
Elder, CM and Menzel, CR 2001 Dissociation of cortisol and behavioural indicators of stress in an orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus) during a computerised task. Primates 42: 345–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fritz, J 1989 Resocialization of captive chimpanzees: an amelioration procedure. American Journal of Primatology 1: 79–86 (Suppl)Google Scholar
Joines, SA 1977 Training programme designed to induce maternal behaviour in a multiparous female lowland gorilla. International Zoo Yearbook 17: 185-188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambeth, S, Bloomsmith, MA and Alford, P 1997 Effects of human activity on chimpanzee wounding. Zoo Biology 16: 327–3333.0.CO;2-C>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laule, G and Desmond, T 1998 Positive reinforcement training as an enrichment strategy. In: Sheperdson, DJ, Mellen, JD and Hutchins, M (eds) Second Nature pp 302–313. Smithsonian University Press: Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
Leavens, DA, Aureli, F and Hopkins, WD 1997 Scratching and cognitive stress: performance and reinforcement effects on hand use, scratch type, and afferent cutaneous pathways during computer cognitive testing by a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). American Journal of Primatology 42: 126–127Google Scholar
Line, SW, Markowitz, H, Morgan, KN and Strong, S 1991 Cage size and environmental enrichment: effects upon behavioural and psychological responses to the stress of daily events. In: Novak, MA and Petto, A (eds) Through the Looking Glass: Well-being in Captive Non-human Primates pp 160–180. American Psychological Association: Washington, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maki, S, Alford, PL, Bloomsmith, MA and Franklin, J 1989 Food puzzle device simulating termite-fishing for captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). American Journal of Primatology 1: 71–78 (Suppl)Google Scholar
Maple, TL 1980 Orangutan Behaviour. Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Markowitz, H 1982 Behavioural Enrichment in the Zoo. Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Markowitz, H and Aday, C 1998 Power for captive animals: contingencies and nature. In: Sheperdson, DJ, Mellen, JD and Hutchins, M (eds) Second Nature pp 47–58. Smithsonian University Press: Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
Markowitz, H and Line, S 1989 Primate research models and environmental enrichment. In Segal, EF (ed) Housing, Care and Psychological Wellbeing of Captive and Laboratory Primates pp 203–212. Noyes Publications: New Jersey, USAGoogle Scholar
Miles, HLW 1990 The cognitive foundations for reference in a signing orangutan. In: Parker, ST and Gibson, KR (eds) Language and Intelligence in Monkeys and Apes pp 511–539. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Paquette, D and Prescott, J 1988 Use of novel objects to enhance environments of captive chimpanzees. Zoo Biology 7: 15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, LA 1992 Variables that influence the activity of captive orangutans. Zoo Biology 11: 177–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platt, DM and Novak, MA 1997 Videostimulation as enrichment for captive rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatto). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 52: 139–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, TB 1998 Meeting a mammal's psychological needs. In: Sheperdson, DJ, Mellen, JD and Hutchins, M (eds) Second Nature pp 83–94. Smithsonian University Press: Washington USAGoogle Scholar
Reinhardt, V, Houser, WD, Eisele, SD and Champoux, M 1987 Social enrichment of the environment with infants for singly caged adult rhesus monkeys. Zoo Biology 6: 365–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhardt, V, Houser, WD, Eisele, SD, Cowley, D and Vertein, R 1988 Behavioural responses of unrelated rhesus monkeys paired for the purpose of environmental enrichment. American Journal of Primatology 14: 135–140CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ross, SK, Bloomsmith, MA, Baker, KC and Hopkins, WD 2000 Initiating a computer-assisted enrichment system for captive chimpanzees. American Journal of Primatology 51: 86 (Abstract)Google Scholar
Rumbaugh, DM, Richardson, WK, Washburn, DA, Savage-Rumbaugh, ES and Hopkins, WD 1989 Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatto), video tasks, and implications for stimulus-response spatial contiguity. Journal of Comparative Psychology 103: 32–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sackett, GP 1966 Monkeys reared in isolation with pictures as visual input: evidence for an innate releasing mechanism. Science 154: 1470–1473CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savage-Rumbaugh, S 1986 Ape Language: From Conditioned Responses to Symbols. Columbia University Press: New York, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schapiro, SJ and Bloomsmith, MA 1994 Behavioural effects of enrichment on pair-housed juvenile rhesus monkeys. American Journal of Primatology 32: 525–533CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tripp, JK 1985 Increasing activity in captive orangutans: provision of manipulable and edible materials. Zoo Biology 4: 225–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troisi, A, Schino, G, D'Amato, M, Pandolfini, N, Aureli, F and D'Amato, FR 1991 Scratching as a behavioural index of anxiety in macaque mothers. Behavioural and Neural Biology 56: 307–313CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Utami, SS, Wich, SA, Sterck, EHM and van Hooff, JARAM 1997 Food competition between wild orangutans in large fig trees. International Journal of Primatology 18: 909–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Washburn, DA and Hopkins, WD 1994 Videotape versus pellet-reward preferences in joystick tasks by macaques. Perceptual and Motor Skills 78: 48–50CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Washburn, DA, Hopkins, WD and Rumbaugh, DM 1989a Automation of learning-set testing: the video-task paradigm. Behavioural Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 21: 281–284CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Washburn, DA, Hopkins, WD and Rumbaugh, DM 1989b Video-task assessment of learning and memory in macaques: effects of stimulus movement on performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology 15: 393–400Google ScholarPubMed
Washburn, DA and Rumbaugh, DM 1992 Testing primates with joystick-based automated apparatus: lessons from the Language Research Center's computerised test system. Behavioural Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 24: 157–164CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, SF 1982 Environmental influences on the activity of captive great apes. Zoo Biology 1: 201–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, BW 1995 A novel item enrichment program reduces lethargy in orangutans. Folia Primatologica 65: 214–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar