Music as enrichment for Sumatran orangutans (Pongo abelii)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Music is commonly employed as auditory enrichment in NHP facilities under the assumption that music is as enriching for NHPs as it is for humans (Hinds et al., 2007; Lutz & Novak, 2005). The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of music as NHP enrichment by exploring musical preference and discriminative ability in three Sumatran orangutans. In Experiment 1, orangutan preference for music vs. silence was tested. Following exposure to a sample of music belonging to one of seven musical genres, orangutans were given the choice via touchscreen to continue to listen to the music sample previously played or to listen to silence instead. Results indicated that all three orangutans either preferred silence to music or were indifferent. No preference for any one of the musical genres tested over others was found. In Experiment 2, orangutans’ ability to discriminate music from scrambled music was assessed using a touchscreen-delivered standard delayed matching-to-sample (DMTS) task. Results indicated that none of the three orangutans could reliably discriminate ‘music’ from ‘scrambled music’. Taken together, results strongly suggest that these orangutans did not experience the musical stimuli as reinforcing and that use of music as enrichment in captive NHP facilities may be more aversive than enriching for some species.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".