德國萊比錫的馬普研究所人類進化學協(xié)會（Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology）約瑟普·柯博士（Josep Call）的一項研究顯示，猩猩,、黑猩猩,、倭黑猩猩和大猩猩等類人猿，都能察覺選擇中的錯誤,。這項研究結(jié)果已經(jīng)發(fā)表在了在線期刊《動物認知》（Animal Cognition）中,。
這項研究分為三個系列實驗，來自德國沃爾夫崗科勒研究中心動物園的七只大猩猩（gorilla）,、八只黑猩猩（chimpanzee）,、四只倭黑猩猩 （bonobo）和七只長臂無尾巨猴（orangutan）參與其中。研究人員給它們兩根空心管子,，其中一根中裝有食物作為誘餌,，另一根則沒有。然后,，研究人員觀察記錄了它們找到“獎賞”的全過程,。
在第一個實驗中，類人猿不會看到這些誘餌,，但是研究人員會通過搖動管子來發(fā)出聲音訊號,，以幫助猩猩確定目標的位置?？虏┦恐荚谕ㄟ^這項實驗,，來測試類人猿在沒有可視信號時，是否會通過聽覺來降低對視覺的依賴。
第二個實驗中,，研究人員首先會讓猩猩看到食物藏匿的位置,，然后隔上一段時間，再讓猩猩開始尋找,，每次實驗的間隔時間不斷延長,。這個實驗的目的在于了解忘記地點是否會對類人猿的尋找增加難度。
最后一個實驗是比較當食物質(zhì)量改變時,，類人猿對可見的誘餌和隱藏的誘餌狀況的不同反應,。作者猜測，不論是否真的確定食物的位置,，類人猿都會在冒險獲得更好的食物時斟酌再三,。
盡管在研究人員的提示下，類人猿們都非常準確地找到了“獎賞”,，但柯博士發(fā)現(xiàn),，它們更傾向于在選擇在冒險之前先檢查管子的內(nèi)部是否有它們想要的東西，或者在受到引誘后等待更長的時間再決定出手獲得食物,。相反,，當類人猿收到有關(guān)食物位置的聽覺信號時，它們會更迅速地作出決定,?？虏┦康娜齻€實驗結(jié)果顯示，類人猿能夠在選擇時意識到自己的決定可能是錯誤的,。
柯博士總結(jié)說：“目前的研究結(jié)果主要基于三個方面：觀察管子內(nèi)部要付出的代價,，獎品的價值和信息的形態(tài)。這三方面的結(jié)合形成了一個處理信息的系統(tǒng),，這些信息通常都是復雜的,，多變的，受控制的,。這三個特點都屬于元認知（即人類對于自己認知活動的認知）的范疇。這些發(fā)現(xiàn)表示非人類的動物也擁有元認知的能力,。”(生物谷Bioon.com)
生物谷推薦原文出處：
Animal Cognition doi：10.1007/s10071-010-0317-x
Do apes know that they could be wrong?
Josep Call
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
When confronted with uncertain or incomplete information in decision-making situations, monkeys and apes opt for either escaping the situation or seeking additional information. These responses have been interpreted as evidence of metacognitive abilities. However, this interpretation has been challenged. On the one hand, studies using the information-seeking paradigm have been criticized because subjects may simply engage in a search for information routine (e.g., search until spot the reward) without any metacognitive involvement. On the other hand, studies using the escape response paradigm have been criticized because subjects may not recognize their own state of uncertainty but have learned to use the escape response in the presence of certain stimuli configurations that create uncertainty. The current study attempted to address these two criticisms by presenting great apes (seven gorillas, eight chimpanzees, four bonobos, seven orangutans) with a seeking information task whose basic procedure consisted of presenting two hollow tubes, baiting one of them and letting subjects choose. Conditions varied depending on whether subjects had visual access to the baiting, the cost associated with seeking information, the time interval between baiting and choosing, the food quality and the additional information offered regarding the food’s location. Although subjects showed a high retrieval accuracy when they had witnessed the baiting, they were more likely to check inside the tube before choosing when high stakes were involved (Experiment 3) or after a longer period of time had elapsed between the baiting and the retrieval of the reward (Experiment 2). In contrast, providing subjects with indirect auditory information about the food’s location or increasing the cost of checking reduced checking before choosing (Experiment 1). Taken together, these findings suggest that subjects knew that they could be wrong when choosing.
