The interface between morphology and action planning: a comparison of two species of New World monkeys

Recent research with several species of nonhuman primates suggests sophisticated motor-planning abilities observed in human adults may be ubiquitous among primates. However, there is considerable variability in the extent to which these abilities are expressed across primate species. In the present experiment, we explore whether the variability in the expression of anticipatory motor-planning abilities may be attributed to cognitive differences (such as tool use abilities) or whether they may be due to the consequences of morphological differences (such as being able to deploy a precision grasp). We compared two species of New World monkeys that differ in their tool use abilities and manual dexterity: squirrel monkeys, Saimiri sciureus (less dexterous with little evidence for tool use) and tufted capuchins, Sapajus apella (more dexterous and known tool users). The monkeys were presented with baited cups in an untrained food extraction task. Consistent with the morphological constraint hypothesis, squirrel monkeys frequently showed second-order motor planning by inverting their grasp when picking up an inverted cup, while capuchins frequently deployed canonical upright grasping postures. Findings suggest that the lack of ability for precision grasping may elicit more consistent second-order motor planning, as the squirrel monkeys (and other species that have shown a high rate of second-order planning) have fewer means of compensating for inefficient initial postures. Thus, the interface between morphology and motor planning likely represents an important factor for understanding both the ontogenetic and phylogenetic origins of sophisticated motor-planning abilities.

The Interface Between Morphology and Action Planning: a Comparison of Two Species of New World Monkeys

Recent research with several species of nonhuman primates suggests sophisticated motor-planning abilities observed in human adults may be ubiquitous among primates. However, there is considerable variability in the extent to which these abilities are expressed across primate species. In the present experiment, we explore whether the variability in the expression of anticipatory motor-planning abilities may be attributed to cognitive differences (such as tool use abilities) or whether they may be due to the consequences of morphological differences (such as being able to deploy a precision grasp). We compared two species of New World monkeys that differ in their tool use abilities and manual dexterity: squirrel monkeys, Saimiri sciureus (less dexterous with little evidence for tool use) and tufted capuchins, Sapajus apella (more dexterous and known tool users). The monkeys were presented with baited cups in an untrained food extraction task. Consistent with the morphological constraint hypothesis, squirrel monkeys frequently showed second-order motor planning by inverting their grasp when picking up an inverted cup, while capuchins frequently deployed canonical upright grasping postures. Findings suggest that the lack of ability for precision grasping may elicit more consistent second-order motor planning, as the squirrel monkeys (and other species that have shown a high rate of second-order planning) have fewer means of compensating for inefficient initial postures. Thus, the interface between morphology and motor planning likely represents an important factor for understanding both the ontogenetic and phylogenetic origins of sophisticated motor-planning abilities. (C) 2013 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The Supreme Court Confirmation Process and Its Implications

In recent history, there has been a trend of increasing partisan polarization throughout most of the American political system. Some of the impacts of this polarization are obvious; however, there is reason to believe that we miss some of the indirect effects of polarization. Accompanying the trend of increased polarization has been an increase in the contentiousness of the Supreme Court confirmation process. I believe that these two trends are related. Furthermore, I argue that these trends have an impact on judicial behavior. This is an issue worth exploring, since the Supreme Court is the most isolated branch of the federal government. The Constitution structured the Supreme Court to ensure that it was as isolated as possible from short-term political pressures and interests. This study attempts to show how it may be possible that those goals are no longer being fully achieved. My first hypothesis in this study is that increases in partisan polarization are a direct cause of the increase in the level of contention during the confirmation process. I then hypothesize that the more contention a justice faces during his or her confirmation process, the more ideologically extreme that justice will then vote on the bench. This means that a nominee appointed by a Republican president will tend to vote even more conservatively than was anticipated following a contentious confirmation process, and vice versa for Democratic appointees. In order to test these hypotheses, I developed a data set for every Supreme Court nominee dating back to President Franklin D. Roosevelt¿s appointments (1937). With this data set, I ran a series of regression models to analyze these relationships. Statistically speaking, the results support my first hypothesis in a fairly robust manner. My regression results for my second hypothesis indicate that the trend I am looking for is present for Republican nominees. For Democratic nominees, the impacts are less robust. Nonetheless, as the results will show, contention during the confirmation process does seem to have some impact on judicial behavior. Following my quantitative analysis, I analyze a series of case studies. These case studies serve to provide tangible examples of these statistical trends as well as to explore what else may be going on during the confirmation process and subsequent judicial decision-making. I use Justices Stevens, Rehnquist, and Alito as the subjects for these case studies. These cases will show that the trends described above do seem to be identifiable at the level of an individual case. These studies further help to indicate other potential impacts on judicial behavior. For example, following Justice Rehnquist¿s move from Associate to Chief Justice, we see a marked change in his behavior. Overall, this study serves as a means of analyzing some of the more indirect impacts of partisan polarization in modern politics. Further, the study offers a means of exploring some of the possible constraints (both conscious and subconscious) that Supreme Court justices may feel while they decide how to cast a vote in a particular case. Given the wide-reaching implications of Supreme Court decisions, it is important to try to grasp a full view of how these decisions are made.