The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Gestural communication of the gorilla (Gorilla gorilla): repertoire, intentionality and possible origins
Open accessAbstract
Social groups of gorillas were observed in three captive facilities and one African field site. Cases of potential gesture use, totalling 9,540, were filtered by strict criteria for intentionality, giving a corpus of 5,250 instances of intentional gesture use. This indicated a repertoire of 102 gesture types. Most repertoire differences between individuals and sites were explicable as a consequence of environmental affordances and sampling effects: overall gesture frequency was a good predictor of universality of occurrence. Only one gesture was idiosyncratic to a single individual, and was given only to humans. Indications of cultural learning were few, though not absent. Six gestures appeared to be traditions within single social groups, but overall concordance in repertoires was almost as high between as within social groups. No support was found for the ontogenetic ritualization hypothesis as the chief means of acquisition of gestures. Many gestures whose form ruled out such an origin, i.e. gestures derived from species-typical displays, were used as intentionally and almost as flexibly as gestures whose form was consistent with learning by ritualization. When using both classes of gesture, gorillas paid specific attention to the attentional state of their audience. Thus, it would be unwarranted to divide ape gestural repertoires into 'innate, species-typical, inflexible reactions' and 'individually learned, intentional, flexible communication'. We conclude that gorilla gestural communication is based on a species-typical repertoire, like those of most other mammalian species but very much larger. Gorilla gestures are not, however, inflexible signals but are employed for intentional communication to specific individuals.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Vygotsky, L. S. (1964) · Bulletin of the Orton Society · doi:10.1007/bf02928399 · Cited by 20,704
Constants across cultures in the face and emotion.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1971) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0030377 · Cited by 5,509
The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.298.5598.1569 · Cited by 5,189
How Monkeys See the World: Inside the Mind of Another Species
Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (1990) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226218526.001.0001 · Cited by 2,268
Tomasello, M., & Call, J. (1997) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195106237.001.0001 · Cited by 1,491
Cited by
Hobaiter, C., Poisot, T., Zuberbühler, K., Hoppitt, W., & Gruber, T. (2014) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001960 · Cited by 323
Self-citationRough‐and‐tumble play as a window on animal communication
Palagi, E., Burghardt, G. M., Smuts, B., Cordoni, G., Dall'Olio, S., Fouts, H. N., Řeháková‐Petrů, M., Siviy, S. M., & Pellis, S. M. (2016) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.12172 · Cited by 209
Metadata
- Authors
- Genty, E., Breuer, T., Hobaiter, C., & Byrne, R. W.
- Venue
- Animal Cognition
- Published
- 2009-02-01
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 527-546
- ISSN
- 1435-9448 (ISSN-L)
- 1435-9456
- OpenAlex
- W2025905101
- Cited by
- 304
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 16.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Gestural communication of the gorilla (Gorilla gorilla): repertoire, intentionality and possible origins. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10071-009-0213-4
- The paper
- Genty, E., Breuer, T., Hobaiter, C., & Byrne, R. W. (2009). Gestural communication of the gorilla (Gorilla gorilla): repertoire, intentionality and possible origins. Animal Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-009-0213-4
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.